Bitcoin is the worst waste of resources and energy in human history. It is solely used for financial speculation, with no genuine utility.
This is a call to ethical hackers: through targeted and repeated computer attacks, we could undermine the confidence of speculators and burst this irrational and destructive financial bubble.
We’d save a lot of wasted energy if it collapsed faster.
I also agree that in the long run POS is better. But the article seems like very alarmist propaganda since it is very scientifically incorrect.
Lots of problems.
The numbers in the article are made up or based on a pretty much speculative made up article.
Lightning network has just been made better allowing millions of transactions per second.
…Maybe that is why that hitpiece propaganda article was published…
The blocksize could be increased. I personally think it should but I can see why they don’t.
BCH is experimenting with a blocksize allowing 5000 tps.
The article talks about the limited amount if transactions. But not value transacted. It claims Bitcoin is used for speculation while in reality it might be used for crossborder payments by money transmitters.
The negative effect on the environment have to take into conclusion anything that Bitcoin replaces or could replace.
If Bitcoin replace gold as store of value. It will decrease a lot of huge energy consumption and destruction of earth by goldminers.
If bitcoin replaces property speculation it will cause people to be less forced to take on huge debt. Since houseprices wont be pushed up by speculation. Removing speculation on houseprices would also shrink the risk of houseprice crashes which can have huge negative impacts on peoples lives.
People dont need to own bitcoins but the need to own a place to live.
Bitcoin looks to be able to replace much of both, as a store of value.
Its way too early to say that Bitcoin wont scale. And therefore it is useless.
The article states that is is propaganda that Bitcoin helps making green energy more profitable and affordable. And claims that miners are mining at night too.
How can the author know that miners do not decrease the mining when there is less overproduction of electricity?
It would not show up on the hashrate since the mining is distributed across the world.
Seems like a childish article that clearly does not come from a serious environmental activist considering it is based on lots of assumptions.
But rather someone who has an agenda.
Would be interesting to read a serious research of the effects of Bitcoin mining. Lots of mining are based on renewable energy and could actually be supporting it.
And it also does not follow that all energy consumption is bad. If it makes it more profitable to build a windturbine more people would turn to wind power as it would lower the time before it becomes proftable.
But I do understand that the article was probably published with support by some big entity who have a profit motive planning to try and disrupt the price of Bitcoin. And by publishing it they can then blame the ‘attacks’ on environmental activists.
I’m neither a hacker or someone who have to defend Bitcoin. If it is bad it’s bad, maybe it is or maybe it helps driving investment into renewables, and in that case it is probably good if true. But I personally would like to base my opinion, not on misinformation. The article seemed too biased too be trustworthy.
It was also kind of predictable that the energy consumption of Bitcoin would be attacked as soon as Ethereum changed to POS.
I belive that once most coins are created a CC should run on POS.
But would like to read some quality information and not that speculative medium article.