NFTs: Cryptocurrency is not inherently bad for the environment.
Proof of work *is* inherently bad for the environment.
Not all cryptocurrencies use proof of work.
Some do, like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, BCH, Monero and Ethereum 1. Not all.
Conversation
Doesn't proof of stake just mean we're now creating new undemocratic oligarchies? Ie. where the people who own more get more of a say in how things are run? I don't see how that is any better?
1
Not exactly, you can do stake-based governance, but that's not what proof of stake is in terms of blockchain consensus, it's about giving more verification votes to nodes who have staked more value. If you verify a block which is found to be malicious, you lose your stake.
1
The key thing is that it doesn't require any significant processing power to do this. It's a good system for keeping the chain honest, while removing the environmental issues.
1
Who decides the rules of the chain? Is this a democratic process? How does taxation and regulation work? I guess I find it hard not to see it as something other than a hostile takeover of the (admittedly awful) existing monetary systems, but maybe I'm missing something.
1
Thinking a bit more, I think 'hostile takeover' is a misuse of terms and hyperbole. But yeah, I don't see how cryptocurrency really helps improve any issues surrounding wealth inequality etc. and could make that a whole lot worse if it gains traction.
Replying to
Good questions, I don't know, but I imagine it works much like any other open source project. Power isn't entirely centralized, Ethereum requires nodes to implement the protocol, so if one day core decided to do something terrible, nodes could refuse to implement.
1
I guess that seems to me like a dictatorial core that has to keep an oligarchy of nodes placated in order to maintain their power? But I realise there are probably complexities there that I'm missing.
1
1
Show replies