37
Comments (16)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
ghost_of_aswartz 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem with this argument is that it's sophistry. The banking system has 100% market share, meaning everyone, including bitcoiners, use it. Bitcoin people are <8%-10%. This number includes people who buy and hold, which is treating it as an asset and not a liquid currency. Liquid currency wise, it's 1% or less--that means people being paid in crytpo, people buying and selling in crypto.

Ok, so when bitcoin, which is ONE cryptocurrency out of over 300 coins, many of them shitcoins--be that as it may--bitcoin only has 40% of the market of all cyrptos

So

Adjust to 100% market share among all cryptos, and then adjust by multiplying by 100 or just under to get the real comparison of energy utilization to the banking system.

You will find it's WAY WAY WAY more than the energy used by the banking system

Stop using FALLACIES OF FALSE COMPARISON by hiding the "vastly non comparable market saturation of crypto"

1
Mad_King_Kalak [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you capitalize something on the internet, that doesn't make what you write more persuasive.

It's an apples to apples comparison - Energy costs for bitcoin mining compared to gold mining and maintaining the current fiat currency system. If you added in all the other cryptos, which are less energy intense, crypto would still not equal gold mining as regards to energy utilization.

You want to make a whole bunch of leaps with data, projecting higher utilization of crypto, etc. to make a comparison, which would make the comparison worthless.

There are reasons to not like crypto, I get it, but energy use is a BS one, as not only this chart shows, but as does the lengths you just went to to create an argument against vanilla data.

1
Torrvarpen 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bitcoins energy usage does not scale linearly. If you wan to double the amount of customers in a bank that currently has one server, you need to ad another server to process all those transactions.

As for Bitcoin there's already 11 000 nodes, fully capable of handling billions of transactions per minute, all of them running on hardware that would have been powered on anyway, like desktop PC's, RPI's etc... which only uses a couple of watts.

All the mining does is to verify blocks by computing hashes, more users does not need more mining devices, you could do it all on just one computer if difficulty is low, and if you could trust whoever owns that computer to not fuck around. Problem is that you can't. You can't trust scummy centralized bankers, that's why Bitcoin was invented in the first place.

Technically speaking all the energy usage for mining, which comes solely from greed, and not because it's actually needed, or related to the amount of users. Should be blamed on the banking system because they're a bunch of corrupt faggots.

This leaves about the same energy usage needs as for just operating the servers in a bank, but more secure as the blockchain is decentralized.

Everything else like fancy office buildings, vaults, surveillance, card readers, office desktop machines, heating, transportation and printing of cash, guns for protection and other things needed in a legacy banking system is a huge waste of energy.

1
ghost_of_aswartz 1 point ago +1 / -0

TLDR: bitcoin DOES use much more energy than the banking system

You are just using a logical fallacy of false comparison since banking is 100% market saturation and bitcoin is 40% of 1%