I hate Bitcoin as much as the next fellow, but this is a dramatically-phrased way of saying the impact of Bitcoin on climate is inconsequential. It's plastic straws all over again.https://twitter.com/nytclimate/status/1434274367911956481 …
-
-
The only reason that Bitcoin's wasteful nature is currently relevant is precisely because of Nicholas's point 3 above. If Bitcoin actually were a leading buyer of sustainable energy and its miners funded infrastructure, then I doubt many folks would care about the wastefulness.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because this is the externality imposed on the rest of us by that wastefulness. If the wastefulness was externality free, why should we care?
-
And that is rightly how the general public reasons about it - why are you complaining about wastefulness if it has no effects on the world? Which is why the climate messaging is so important here.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
We've a political opportunity or "wedge issue" to create investment externalities taxes on owning unnecessarily environmentally destructive assets. Initially, 1-2% per year from holders of proof-of-work crypto-currencies, but later investors in coal, oil, car and meat producers.
-
Yes, wealth taxes work poorly outside nations like Switzerland, so yes bitcoiners would flout holdings taxation, but.. It'd still force ETH, ZEC, etc. to finally adopt proof-of-stake, which shows a political victory. It'd also crashes the BTC price, which brings a reality check.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.