That’s what i thought, too. I would never believed if someone telled me some years ago that there will be another scam (ai) that wastes even more power.
totally agree re bitcoin, and also am very sceptical of crypto as a mass-adopted currency in general
however there are plenty of networks that don’t use proof of work to validate their chains, and they aren’t bad for the environment to nearly the same degree
i tend to agree for mass-adopted currency, but mass currency is only 1 use case for blockchain
things like bank to bank transfers (think a replacement to swift: with semi trusted entities like a big group of banks, the proof functions can be both extremely efficient and fast whilst remaining scalable and distributed so nobody has control… of course this would be a private network, but every bank involved can audit and sign off on transactions)
blockchain at its core is an immutable log between untrusted parties… it can be used to prove a particular thing happened at a particular point, in situations where people don’t even trust governments etc to maintain accurate records
it’s too big and cumbersome to be used by everyone in the world for payment, but it’s a good facilitator of some niche things that most people won’t have any idea about
the technology is solid; it’s just very limited, and the most “profitable” and marketable uses are also the most ill-suited
No bank or goverment can control it. It is the benefit of being able to send money to anyone around the world while maintaining ownership of your money as if it were cash in hand.
That is exactly the problem. It has no real value as the entire thing is propped up by chaos. It could be worth a trillion dollars one day and then nothing the next.
Banks or governments as opposed to who though? There’s a reason we usually want those publicly owned and regulated institutions to handle our transactions. Obviously, it depends what country you live in, and what currency you’re talking about. But I don’t think Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency actually solves the problem it purports to.
Ideally, no one controls it. It’s just exists as a medium for exchange.
There are both good and bad points to currency have value that can be adjusted by gov’ts; crypto currency solves one set of problems, but has it’s own, inherent issues.
You’re not really selling it for me, which I guess is the point aye? 😂
What I imagine as ideal is an open-source and transparent bank and payment system that issues its own currency backed by ties to its investment portfolio that is properly regulated by its host country. i.e. you would use their currency to trade among others on the platform according to the percentage value of their portfolio that you own as measured by the currency to which you which to convert your holdings for a given purchase. You could select different tiers of risk if you’d like your “savings” to grow in value over time but experience potential dips or even loss of value if there is major market stability.
I am not an expert on such things, but this at least has real links to tangible asset worth, and isn’t based on the artificial scarcity of an increasingly unsolvable math problem.
this at least has real links to tangible asset worth,
Well, kind of. But the worth of those assets is largely due to perception, rather than real utility value. Like, real estate is stupidly expensive in many places, but it’s expensive because people believe that it’s expensive. When real estate bubble burst, you see the ‘worth’ of that real estate drop sharply. The utility value is having a place to sleep, but it’s often treated as an investment. So you would still see currency value fluctuations. Currency issue by gov’ts largely has worth because the gov’t says that it has worth; it’s not tied to anything. (BTW - tying currency to a tangible asset limits your ability to add currency when necessary. It will tend to lead to depreciation–the value of the currency rising–which is usually a bad thing.)
The other problem is that corporations and banks go bust; if they were issuing currency, that would mean all your money would instantly be worthless.
And therefore no recourse if you are robbed, scammed, etc. Try going to your local, or even federal authorities and explain to them that you lost the digital equivalent of $10000 and they won’t do a thing.
None of those sorts of attacks would be prevented by the use any sort of escrow service because you’re not actively performing a transaction.
An Analysis of the first half of this year also shows a significant uptick in attacks on personal crypto wallets, and over $2 billion stolen so far in 2025.
i do think they hold some value for things like bank to bank, where each party is kiiiiind of untrusted and unrelated (not on a public chain - it’s just a private consensus between collaborating parties)
it also undeniably provides payment outside of standard card networks and the finance sector (people have been using crypto to buy drugs for decades now), so can be used to circumvent things like this mastercard/visa morality police garbage… i think in that, it’d be useful to have a strongish cryptocurrency somewhere at least to be able to provide uncensorable competition (the alternative to that being some global EU network that everyone accepted in the same manner)
but i think the value in blockchain in general is minimally about currency: that was just the first implementation… it’s a distributed, trustworthy log between untrusted individual entities. the benefits of that are honestly pretty niche, but i think it does solve some valuable problems… just most people should never even know that blockchain was involved
Yes, but that still means that the other half is fossil fuel.
Bitcoin mining’s distribution makes it difficult for researchers to identify the location of miners and electricity use. It is therefore difficult to translate energy consumption into carbon emissions. As of 2025, a non-peer-reviewed study by the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) estimated that bitcoin consumed 138 TWh (500 PJ) annually, representing 0.5% of the world’s electricity consumption and resulting in annual greenhouse gas emissions of 39.8 Mt CO2, representing 0.08% of global emissions and comparable to Slovakia’s emissions.
I think people should really reconsider using PoW cryptocurrencies. Ethereum was able to reduce their energy consumption by 99.95% by switching to PoS and it’s still doing fine. IMO Bitcoin is outdated technology that is just used as a pyramid scheme due to its name recognition.
Compared to our current system though? How much does the entire banking and credit card industry contribute to emissions for almost the same service? Bitcoin incentivises energy companies to mine BTC with excess energy.
Ethereum was able to cut their energy usage down drastically by moving away of PoW. Windmills and clean energy aren’t the solution, getting rid of PoW is. Why build more solar farms if you could just not use so much electricity?
You aren’t computing the cost in blood, censorship, wasted time, the lives employed by these evil orgs wasting their lives scamming people, the loss of revenue from value-producing business, the waste of banking cards, and the COUNTLESS other energy-guzzling mechanisms involved.
Bitcoin eliminates ALL these problems. It is by far more efficient, it isn’t even close. Also, it isn’t a payment system like visa, what an ignorant ass comparison. It is literally a sovereign currency with publicly auditable minting & ledgers. It replaces MONEY. Payment processors are built on top of it.
Yea, even the shit visa and mastercard can switch to payment processing on top of Bitcoin. It would actually be beneficial. When they decline a transaction you just directly use the network instead.
Btw PoS is also bullshit, in a completely different and inferior class of crypto. It requires HUMAN CONSENT to enter the network. PoW requires COMPUTATIONAL CONSENT. PoW lets anyone into the network if they can follow the rules of minting. This is HUGE when talking about a freedom-preserving system.
Put more simply, PoS systems are aristocracy owning an apple orchard (you ask an authority if they are allowed to take an apple), PoW is like an apple orchard deep in the woods that anyone can take from (you just have to walk there). Understand the difference?
One OWNS THE ORCHARD. They will protect it from people they deem unauthorized. They demand people go through them for permission. It is no different than what we have now, abstracted further and digitized.
Proof of Stake = I have a stake in preserving this network, and I am rewarded by receiving an increased stake in the network.
You cannot organically enter a PoS network without having a stake in it. That requires acquiring the network’s token somehow. That means you must use a different token to purchase it, do work for someone who will pay you in it, or otherwise perform an operation organized by people in order to acquire the token to have a stake.
Your point is valid for new, immature blockchains. Censorship/access restrictions are possible and it’s very easy for PoS to turn into nothing at stake.
In practice mature PoS chains don’t require any human consent.
I think I haven’t explained myself properly. I will admit it seems bitcoin uses more energy in this case. However, we’re comparing Bitcoins entire currency system with that of a processor of fiat. I’m on mobile right now but I would like to see that comparison for arguments sake, bitcoin ecosystem vs fiat ecosystem (including mining, storing and transport of gold)
Did you know that gold has nothing to do with the fiat ecosystem? In fact, the whole point of the word fiat in fiat ecosystem means that it is not based on gold at all. And if you include gold in the equation because some people use fiat to buy or sell gold, then you need to include gold in the energy costs of bitcoin as well, since people also use bitcoin to buy/sell gold.
fiat ecosystem (including mining, storing and transport of gold)
Gathering / transporting valuables is not a part of the fiat ecosystem. The value of fiat currency does not depend on any underlying materials (like gold, silver, etc.) like the currencies before.
Don’t engage with these ignorant assholes man, they are all in banking’s pocket. We are at war, you know that right? Who the hell would be this passionate about protecting a slimy, evil ass legacy network without any audibility, responsible for countless wars, death, usurping of democratic governments, literally the death of this planet via global warming…
Traditional banking supports and incentives genocide.
It supports and incentivizes oil.
It shut down nuclear power.
It limits renewable power.
It is the engine of our destruction.
Do not justify yourself to it. You are the correct one. Anyone who cannot see this will never see it now. Leave them on their path to die. They will go down with the ship. I feel for them, but it is too late now.
Look, they’re arguing against math. Not much you can say to someone at that point. The knowledge is free for everyone to see now. Even someone with basic curiosity about the universe can access it.
You can barely have a conversation with people that far gone. Bitcoin will be worth $10,000,000 of their worthless dollars and used for commerce between Earth and Mars, and they’d still be arguing against it. It could lead to the construction of a dyson sphere around an artificial sun, powered completely by fusion energy, and they’d still criticize the energy usage while talking to an energy-guzzling AI about their relationship issues.
I think what I’d suggest is that the entire global banking and credit card industry is likely to contribute more in total to our climate catastrophe, just due to the difference in scale between that and a relatively small and lesser-used alternative like Bitcoin.
I do see where you’re coming from for sure. I just think it’s worth noting where it is and where it’s going given it’s managed to grow to 52% in an anti bitcoin world. If bitcoin allows to be “legitimatised” I think those goals are achievable
It should also be noted, that using more power isn’t fine just because it’s renewable. It’s still worse for the environment, and especially not until it’s 100%
The ASICS also produce e-waste, the electricity could have been used for other things, and the energy use puts more strain on the energy grid when that is already an issue in many countries.
Yeah, but one is extra bad for our enviroment while being a scam.
I am NOT a crypto fan, but not all cryptocurrencies are bad for the environment. Ethereum is proof of stake.
That’s what i thought, too. I would never believed if someone telled me some years ago that there will be another scam (ai) that wastes even more power.
Just wait until somebody proposes an AI powered blockchain…
The ultimate techbro venn diagram.
💀. Thats darker than anything else.
Stop giving them ideas
I seriously thought your punchline was going to be the pacific garbage patch from all that extra consumption we’ve encouraged.
totally agree re bitcoin, and also am very sceptical of crypto as a mass-adopted currency in general
however there are plenty of networks that don’t use proof of work to validate their chains, and they aren’t bad for the environment to nearly the same degree
They are still very unstable and rely on some sort of consensus. It is flat out a bad design. It would be safer to pay with stocks.
consensus is basically what all modern databases rely on… it’s not unstable; it has properties that need to be well known and accounted for
The problem is using that for something world wide with no backing by anything material.
It is unstable by nature
i tend to agree for mass-adopted currency, but mass currency is only 1 use case for blockchain
things like bank to bank transfers (think a replacement to swift: with semi trusted entities like a big group of banks, the proof functions can be both extremely efficient and fast whilst remaining scalable and distributed so nobody has control… of course this would be a private network, but every bank involved can audit and sign off on transactions)
blockchain at its core is an immutable log between untrusted parties… it can be used to prove a particular thing happened at a particular point, in situations where people don’t even trust governments etc to maintain accurate records
it’s too big and cumbersome to be used by everyone in the world for payment, but it’s a good facilitator of some niche things that most people won’t have any idea about
the technology is solid; it’s just very limited, and the most “profitable” and marketable uses are also the most ill-suited
Why use them and not… normal fiat currency?
No bank or goverment can control it. It is the benefit of being able to send money to anyone around the world while maintaining ownership of your money as if it were cash in hand.
That is exactly the problem. It has no real value as the entire thing is propped up by chaos. It could be worth a trillion dollars one day and then nothing the next.
Anti-inflationary to keep cash in BTC as opposed to sitting in an account at a bank
Banks or governments as opposed to who though? There’s a reason we usually want those publicly owned and regulated institutions to handle our transactions. Obviously, it depends what country you live in, and what currency you’re talking about. But I don’t think Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency actually solves the problem it purports to.
Ideally, no one controls it. It’s just exists as a medium for exchange.
There are both good and bad points to currency have value that can be adjusted by gov’ts; crypto currency solves one set of problems, but has it’s own, inherent issues.
You’re not really selling it for me, which I guess is the point aye? 😂
What I imagine as ideal is an open-source and transparent bank and payment system that issues its own currency backed by ties to its investment portfolio that is properly regulated by its host country. i.e. you would use their currency to trade among others on the platform according to the percentage value of their portfolio that you own as measured by the currency to which you which to convert your holdings for a given purchase. You could select different tiers of risk if you’d like your “savings” to grow in value over time but experience potential dips or even loss of value if there is major market stability.
I am not an expert on such things, but this at least has real links to tangible asset worth, and isn’t based on the artificial scarcity of an increasingly unsolvable math problem.
Well, kind of. But the worth of those assets is largely due to perception, rather than real utility value. Like, real estate is stupidly expensive in many places, but it’s expensive because people believe that it’s expensive. When real estate bubble burst, you see the ‘worth’ of that real estate drop sharply. The utility value is having a place to sleep, but it’s often treated as an investment. So you would still see currency value fluctuations. Currency issue by gov’ts largely has worth because the gov’t says that it has worth; it’s not tied to anything. (BTW - tying currency to a tangible asset limits your ability to add currency when necessary. It will tend to lead to depreciation–the value of the currency rising–which is usually a bad thing.)
The other problem is that corporations and banks go bust; if they were issuing currency, that would mean all your money would instantly be worthless.
Until some guy in LA hires a bunch of moonlighting police officers to steel your laptop
Yup, just like cash.
To an extent cryptos only value is it can be turned into currency.
And therefore no recourse if you are robbed, scammed, etc. Try going to your local, or even federal authorities and explain to them that you lost the digital equivalent of $10000 and they won’t do a thing.
You can opt in to an arbitrator before sending the money.
And that helps you how in the event of a theft?
It prevents the theft in the first place because they’d need to hack two parties instead of just one.
Wow, are you really that clueless about crypto stealing malware, Fraud by crypto exchanges, Authentication attacks, etc?
None of those sorts of attacks would be prevented by the use any sort of escrow service because you’re not actively performing a transaction.
An Analysis of the first half of this year also shows a significant uptick in attacks on personal crypto wallets, and over $2 billion stolen so far in 2025.
i do think they hold some value for things like bank to bank, where each party is kiiiiind of untrusted and unrelated (not on a public chain - it’s just a private consensus between collaborating parties)
it also undeniably provides payment outside of standard card networks and the finance sector (people have been using crypto to buy drugs for decades now), so can be used to circumvent things like this mastercard/visa morality police garbage… i think in that, it’d be useful to have a strongish cryptocurrency somewhere at least to be able to provide uncensorable competition (the alternative to that being some global EU network that everyone accepted in the same manner)
but i think the value in blockchain in general is minimally about currency: that was just the first implementation… it’s a distributed, trustworthy log between untrusted individual entities. the benefits of that are honestly pretty niche, but i think it does solve some valuable problems… just most people should never even know that blockchain was involved
Fair points, cheers.
Over 52% of the bitcoin network is renewable energy and growing. Y’all need to update your info, damn
Yes, but that still means that the other half is fossil fuel.
I think people should really reconsider using PoW cryptocurrencies. Ethereum was able to reduce their energy consumption by 99.95% by switching to PoS and it’s still doing fine. IMO Bitcoin is outdated technology that is just used as a pyramid scheme due to its name recognition.
Compared to our current system though? How much does the entire banking and credit card industry contribute to emissions for almost the same service? Bitcoin incentivises energy companies to mine BTC with excess energy.
The current systems used by VISA use significantly less energy compared to PoW cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin
statista.com - Bitcoin average energy consumption per transaction compared to that of VISA as of January 19, 2025
Ethereum was able to cut their energy usage down drastically by moving away of PoW. Windmills and clean energy aren’t the solution, getting rid of PoW is. Why build more solar farms if you could just not use so much electricity?
BULLSHIT.
You aren’t computing the cost in blood, censorship, wasted time, the lives employed by these evil orgs wasting their lives scamming people, the loss of revenue from value-producing business, the waste of banking cards, and the COUNTLESS other energy-guzzling mechanisms involved.
Bitcoin eliminates ALL these problems. It is by far more efficient, it isn’t even close. Also, it isn’t a payment system like visa, what an ignorant ass comparison. It is literally a sovereign currency with publicly auditable minting & ledgers. It replaces MONEY. Payment processors are built on top of it.
Yea, even the shit visa and mastercard can switch to payment processing on top of Bitcoin. It would actually be beneficial. When they decline a transaction you just directly use the network instead.
Btw PoS is also bullshit, in a completely different and inferior class of crypto. It requires HUMAN CONSENT to enter the network. PoW requires COMPUTATIONAL CONSENT. PoW lets anyone into the network if they can follow the rules of minting. This is HUGE when talking about a freedom-preserving system.
Put more simply, PoS systems are aristocracy owning an apple orchard (you ask an authority if they are allowed to take an apple), PoW is like an apple orchard deep in the woods that anyone can take from (you just have to walk there). Understand the difference?
One OWNS THE ORCHARD. They will protect it from people they deem unauthorized. They demand people go through them for permission. It is no different than what we have now, abstracted further and digitized.
What a bunch of bullshit Bitcoin is not more efficient and gets less efficient the more coins get mined.
Yeah, somebody hasn’t refreshed their browser since 2010.
That is specific to delegated proof of stake, not PoS in general.
Proof of Stake = I have a stake in preserving this network, and I am rewarded by receiving an increased stake in the network.
You cannot organically enter a PoS network without having a stake in it. That requires acquiring the network’s token somehow. That means you must use a different token to purchase it, do work for someone who will pay you in it, or otherwise perform an operation organized by people in order to acquire the token to have a stake.
That’s what I mean by human consent.
Your point is valid for new, immature blockchains. Censorship/access restrictions are possible and it’s very easy for PoS to turn into nothing at stake.
In practice mature PoS chains don’t require any human consent.
I think I haven’t explained myself properly. I will admit it seems bitcoin uses more energy in this case. However, we’re comparing Bitcoins entire currency system with that of a processor of fiat. I’m on mobile right now but I would like to see that comparison for arguments sake, bitcoin ecosystem vs fiat ecosystem (including mining, storing and transport of gold)
Ah, moving the goal posts, aren’t we?
Did you know that gold has nothing to do with the fiat ecosystem? In fact, the whole point of the word fiat in fiat ecosystem means that it is not based on gold at all. And if you include gold in the equation because some people use fiat to buy or sell gold, then you need to include gold in the energy costs of bitcoin as well, since people also use bitcoin to buy/sell gold.
They’re not moving the goalposts.
Gathering / transporting valuables is not a part of the fiat ecosystem. The value of fiat currency does not depend on any underlying materials (like gold, silver, etc.) like the currencies before.
So does the fiat system then get added to Bitcoin? Since it’s only value is it can be exchanged for fiat currency.
BTC can be used like fiat so no?
Don’t engage with these ignorant assholes man, they are all in banking’s pocket. We are at war, you know that right? Who the hell would be this passionate about protecting a slimy, evil ass legacy network without any audibility, responsible for countless wars, death, usurping of democratic governments, literally the death of this planet via global warming…
Traditional banking supports and incentives genocide.
It supports and incentivizes oil.
It shut down nuclear power.
It limits renewable power.
It is the engine of our destruction.
Do not justify yourself to it. You are the correct one. Anyone who cannot see this will never see it now. Leave them on their path to die. They will go down with the ship. I feel for them, but it is too late now.
The fastest way to render your point invalid.
Shit you got me, you ruined our perfect psyop!
Oof yeah I looked back and noticed I’m arguing on memes😵💫 it’s amazing we’re on the fediverse but they can’t see the parallels
Yup.
Look, they’re arguing against math. Not much you can say to someone at that point. The knowledge is free for everyone to see now. Even someone with basic curiosity about the universe can access it.
You can barely have a conversation with people that far gone. Bitcoin will be worth $10,000,000 of their worthless dollars and used for commerce between Earth and Mars, and they’d still be arguing against it. It could lead to the construction of a dyson sphere around an artificial sun, powered completely by fusion energy, and they’d still criticize the energy usage while talking to an energy-guzzling AI about their relationship issues.
They’re gone my friend.
I think what I’d suggest is that the entire global banking and credit card industry is likely to contribute more in total to our climate catastrophe, just due to the difference in scale between that and a relatively small and lesser-used alternative like Bitcoin.
I do see where you’re coming from for sure. I just think it’s worth noting where it is and where it’s going given it’s managed to grow to 52% in an anti bitcoin world. If bitcoin allows to be “legitimatised” I think those goals are achievable
Bitcoin well never be legitimized it is to volatile.
There is no excess energy though. They wouldn’t be making that energy if it wasn’t for Bitcoin.
I’ll see if I can link it but some companies do, I think specifically it has to do with renewable energies but don’t quote me on that
I think they’re referring to renewables that otherwise wouldn’t be cost effective.
Now those windfarm can be batch processing AI instead of BTC.
It should also be noted, that using more power isn’t fine just because it’s renewable. It’s still worse for the environment, and especially not until it’s 100%
The ASICS also produce e-waste, the electricity could have been used for other things, and the energy use puts more strain on the energy grid when that is already an issue in many countries.
Even at 100%, there’s still better things to do with electricity than Bitcoin. Like hydrogen and fuel production (for planes, ships, heavy industry).
I agree, but it’s still early days. I’ll keep pushing for a greener development of the network, too
You cryptobitches have been saying it’s “early days” since 2009
It’s been 16 years. That bullshit don’t fly anymore.
It’s wasting useful energy, and you think that’s a good thing?
So is most of this thread…
Nope not what I’m saying