Remove Bitcoins?

Hi F-Droid,

First, thank you for you great repository and for defending FOSS software ! :slight_smile:
But I have a request, could you remove bitcoins donation buttons ( and other proof-of-work currencies … )?

I know it sounds weird, but bitcoins are a big ecological problem and I think making it disappear would be a moral thing to do.

as you can see in the link a single transaction footprint:

  • Equivalent to the carbon footprint of 725,390 VISA transactions or 48,359 hours of watching Youtube.
  • Equivalent to the power consumption of an average U.S. household over 20.64 days.
  • Equivalent to the weight of 1.48 ‘C’-size batteries or 2.10 golf balls.

Please don’t encourage this waste. :cry:

8 Likes

I fully supporting removing cryptocurrencies from fdroid! thanks for bringing this up!

3 Likes

Take a broader look at the ecological issues. Why do we have all that litter, emissions, poisoned lands, etc.? Because such way of production is profitable. Manufacturers reduce lifecycles of goods, cut all costs—all to win the competition. That’s how capitalism works.

How did bitcoin become a thing? Individuals and companies invested into it. It’s a serious business now. Even if cryptocurrencies suddenly stop existing, capital will still be here willing to invest into something, maybe much more devastating.

So, fighting against cryptocurrencies gives nothing but a false feeling of doing something good.

3 Likes

Removing cryptos is a mistake. Not only are cryptos not going to go away, they are only going to increase in value over time.

@TryingTo There is a lot of disinformation surrounding the proof-of-work algorithms and also the state of the current fiat currency system that we have at the moment.

The current fiat system is actually far more wasteful than bitcoin. Think of the hundreds of thousands of finance and bank employees and execs wasting time and energy (including air travel) speculating on almost every fiat currency. EDIT: Even just going to work everyday and the cost of running the building is a massive drain on energy and I would say it far exceeds the consumption of 1% of the global energy use.

Think of the banks who are applying negative interest to your savings, ie. stealing your savings, to encourage you to spend your money. Forcing the very over-consumption that you seem to be against.

Think of the corruption that they get away with on a daily basis in terms of manipulating the price in other markets.

Think of the corruption surrounding those who are closest to the free newly printed money. I encourage you to look into the “Cantillon Effect”, which repudiates trickle down economics. Basically if you are fighting against inequality then you need to fight against fiat. Period. Since 1970, when all ties to hard currency were severed, we have seen inequality skyrocket along with a host of other problems. Inequality is a big problem though, and considered by many progressives as the greatest modern giant that requires slaying. In equality is driving us down a very dark path. Basically those with first access to the fiat money are able to squirrel the money away in assets, depriving actual working people of those assets and better worker conditions and pay.

Bitcoin, as a protocol, is designed to use less energy as energy becomes (edit: fix) more scarce.

Bitcoin mining in general can actually be efficient because miners can be setup closest to where the energy is produced. (EDIT) When there is an oversupply, instead of selling the electricity cheaply or burning it off and wasting the energy the energy producer has the option to secure a proof-of-work blockchain. Don’t blame the crypto-currency, blame the country that is burning the coal or oil. EDIT Moving forward, cyptos will actually favour the highly variable nature of renewable energy.

EDIT: Proof-or-work blockchains can also help to democratise many important systems that today, depend on monopolistic third parties to set prices (and wages).

Bitcoin is limited, meaning that the shenanigans of those in power would also be limited. Think of all the leaders that are printing money to build edifices of concrete and steel that noone actually voted for. In a Bitcoin world those who actually want the new super-highway (read: road for more fossil fuel burners) will need to pay for it themselves. Governments will not be able to print money for their mates in finance and construction to build such things, they will need to actually raise the taxes locally, and this enforces greater transparency and democracy, by design.

Inflating the money supply (printing fiat aka quantitative easing (QE)) and giving the money to highly connected mates is actually theft from the everyday person, because your purchasing power automatically goes down. That is what has been happening for the last few decades since 1970. Learn history.

I’m not going to get bogged down into a protracted discussion on this, for all I know you are an anti-bitcoin drone, funded by the very interests that I speak ill toward.

As @relan said, cryptos and proof-of-work, exist for a reason and in bitcoins case it works perfectly as it should. Cypher punks have been working for decades to democratise the money system and create a 21st century money supply, that is limited, fungible, divisible, portable and now (finally) valuable. Anyone standing in the way of this process is urinating into the wind, as far as I can tell.

In short, I would recommend keeping bitcoin in.

If you don’t want over-consumption, and want to save the planet, I sincerely say look at the population problems and don’t have more than one child. Encourage free access to contraception and family planning services.

3 Likes

I actually donated multiple times to F-Droid apps I used, simply because I had bitcoins and the Bitcoin button made it entirely straightforward to do so with the wallet app installed.

Aren’t we getting a bit overboard with politics in F-Droid now? Many apps support Bitcoin donations, and F-Droid lists that possibility because they do. Sorry if I call “slippery slope” but if F-Droid starts deciding what payment method are socially acceptable it will start reminding me of eBay forcing PayPal at least until they no longer liked PayPal.

Actually I have no need to call “slippery slope” anyway because even if the slope isn’t slippery, simply removing Bitcoin as an option, even if it doesn’t go any further, removes potential donations from their recipients (for instance from people who have bitcoins and wish to donate anonymously).

I could raise other, different “ethical” issues with other payment methods that are a lot more mainstream, too. I’m not an F-Droid core developer so it doesn’t matter what I raise (probably?), but again, are we really going there?

And is removing actual Bitcoin clients from the repo next? And if not, why not, compared to removing the buttons?
What about clients for other cryptocurrencies that are designed to be less wasteful? Will you hire a panel of climate scientists to determine which ones are a net positive and which a net negative for the planet? (And what currency will you pay them with?)

4 Likes

I don’t agree with the removal either, actually since the harm has been done (energy consumption) I find it strange that we should just throw the result to the drain.

2 Likes

It would be interesting to write a little script which analyzes all the bitcoin addresses mentioned in f-droid to see about how much donations we are actually talking about. My feeling would be that there is much more talk about bitcoin than actual use, but I don’t know.

Good idea, @nuntius35 but your intuition on bitcoin is not correct.

In the current quarter (to date) F-Droid received approx 0.2240 BTC. Do the conversion into whatever fairy dust fiat currency you choose.

1 Like

It seems clear we’re not near consensus on this issue, so I’m fine with leaving things at status quo.

But I still strongly believe that the vast majority of cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin included, do vastly more harm than good. I was a Bitcoin early adopter in 2010, I definitely thought it had lots of potential for democratizing money. But now we have seen cryptocurrencies in the real world, and the vast majority of their uses are harmful, e.g. tax avoidance, money laundering, naked speculation, etc. On top of that, they are terrible currencies: expensive transactions, difficult to use, terrible security record, no way to reverse fradulent transfers, poor privacy, extremely volatile, and very energy intensive. If you are anti-fiat currency, then you should move away from current crypto-currencies because they make fiat currencies look so much better, with concrete numbers to compare. It was a wonderful idea, but it is clear now, it just didn’t work out.

Here’s one nice take on it, there are many others:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-03-09/bitcoin-is-ridiculous-blockchain-is-dangerous-paul-ford

2 Likes

That New Yorker you linked to is spouting a lot of hubris, projecting a lot of his guilt about hyper-financiallisation onto Bitcoin, and conflating Bitcoin and ICOs. Good to see he’s been added to the special list.

Digital literacy is booming. The next generation and 20 somethings today are able to understand blockchains blind-folded. They will also see that it is the only way to truly save. Everyday, systems and protocols are being refined, about how to easily store and secure cryptos and it takes only a couple days to start putting the protocols into action, and being receptive to new ways of doing things.

These are early days for bitcoin and hard money. One decade in and it has already raised the ire of central bankers and policy makers. The legacy media are scared to touch it because they know that they are benefitting from the excesses of asset inflation. For the past 50 years we have been living in a fiat fairy tale and have become complacent while the landscape has shifted. The legacy media cannot predict a day into the future anymore, they are so wedded to the status-quo that they couldn’t even see Brexit and Trump. Can we trust them with our financial news? Real reporters on the ground, everyday are exposing more and more of the as a hyper-financialised ponzi, and reporting corollaries today to previous crises. Today I hear that the central banks are having an “Oprah moment”, ie. “free” money for all the member banks, everyday from now until Oct 10 (read: more automatic, undemocratic theft from citizens through inflating the money supply).

Tax avoidance is a thing only because governments allow it to be a thing. They base taxablity on “profit”/“loss” statements rather than the value-added land and capital. This is going to change in a hard currency future. The mega-corporates have been avoiding paying taxes for decades, the fact that everyday people are “legally” now learning how to do it, means that governments are finally forced to adopt Henry George-style systems, its happening slowly where I live already, only 200 years late or thereabouts but better late than never.

I think that you are expecting too much too soon. Ignoring the swindlers that popped up in 2017, and ignoring the volatility that comes with challenging the status quo, the future always getting brighter for Bitcoin and proof-or-work, the fact that lightning and other Layer 2 enhancements are coming online and reducing transaction fees is also great to see.

If I remember correctly, there’s a relatively recent book on Henry George and “Georgism” that I can dig up. I think it has a red or maroon cover. I went to a book review a couple years ago and was really eye-opening stuff. I finally understood what all “those people” were saying over the years, when they were advocating “land-tax”.

EDIT: not so recent

:slight_smile:

Aren’t we getting a bit overboard with politics in F-Droid now? Many apps support Bitcoin donations, and F-Droid lists that possibility because they do.
It’s not politics anymore, it’s ethics.
Bitcoin has a few million users and it produces the same carbon footprint as Denmark.
A user that uses Bitcoin basically doubles the annual amount of carbon he produces. It’s too enormous.
In a time when we need to reduce our carbon footprint.

What about clients for other cryptocurrency that are designed to be less wasteful? Will you hire a panel of climate scientists to determine which ones are a net positive and which a net negative for the planet?

Why complicate things ? If you know a currency is extremely bad, you should remove it.

There’s is an estimated 7.1m millions active users (https://www.bitcoinmarketjournal.com/how-many-people-use-bitcoin/) . They produce as much as Denmark ( 5 800 000 users).

You don’t need to think about it. It’s bad. It’s extremely bad. The numbers are so gigantic anymore it’s not an opinion anymore, it’s a fact. It’s not saying paypal doesn’t treat his employees well, but visa is overpaying his directors, but, but … And having to spend ages to see which one is better than the other, which is more moral than the other.
You just have to look at the numbers …

I don’t agree with the removal either, actually since the harm has been done (energy consumption) I find it strange that we should just throw the result to the drain.
No because the harm hasn’t be done. ( plus it encourages the use of bitcoin), every transaction does a lot of environmental damage.

PS : I’m sorry every comment I do need to be validate ( I’m a new user ^ ^). So it’s difficult for me to edit my posts, and answer when I want .

How did bitcoin become a thing? Individuals and companies invested into it. It’s a serious business now. Even if cryptocurrencies suddenly stop existing, capital will still be here willing to invest into something, maybe much more devastating.

Exactly, that’s why FDroid shouldn’t encourage it . And if there’s something more devastating, FDroid shouldn’t encourage it too .

I’m not going to get bogged down into a protracted discussion on this, for all I know you are an anti-bitcoin drone, funded by the very interests that I speak ill toward.

I don’t know if I really want to answer you just for that .

Bitcoin mining in general can actually be efficient because miners can be setup closest to where the energy is produced. Don’t blame the crypto-currency, blame the country that is burning the coal or oil.

No blame the people that are using bitcoin that burn coal …

If you don’t want over-consumption, and want to save the planet, I sincerely say look at the population problems and don’t have more than one child. Encourage free access to contraception and family planning services.

No if even want to save the planet , I need to fight against things that I can fight .
if you look at https://www.blockchain.com, the days which has the biggest number of transactions was 450000.
450000 *12 = 5 400 000

The actual Annualized Carbon footprint is the same as Denmark.
Denmark’s actual population 5 800 000.

So basically , the way I see it, doing 30 transactions a year has the same carbon footprint of a actual human being in denmark. Bitcoins is as bad as having children :wink:

In short, I would recommend keeping bitcoin in.

Honestly, I think you are i acting as the banks you hate.
There’s a good thing to do , and you don’t want to do it, for whatever the reason.
Will you lose your job ? Will your family or your friends hate you for it ? Will your quality of life be reduced ?
So maybe you are acting worse than the banks you hate …

I understand you love the idea of cryptocurrencies, but if you want to encourage them, why not encourage the cryptocurrencies that are best for the environment instead ?

Indeed, why overcomplicate things and get into complex, nuanced and arguable politics when it’s complicated enough to just get all the bona fide (including cryptocurrency a related) open source applications to compile and work in F-Droid?

There are going to be widely diverging opinions on this, simply because it’s far from a clearcut issue. I think this is the sort of situation where, if F-Droid doesn’t default to being neutral, it will waste more time losing people and fighting about politics than it uses for doing what it’s meant to.

Besides, Google has more than enough gatekeeping in Play (despite perception some have that it’s only an Apple issue), and losing this advantage over it would simply be a bad move.

Hello, my friend can’t reply to this thread because he doesn’t use JavaScript, but he asked me to relay the following links for the community’s consideration:

You omitted parts of my quote without adding “(…)”, @TryingTo, the full quote was:

Bitcoin mining in general can actually be efficient because miners can be setup closest to where the energy is produced. (EDIT) When there is an oversupply, instead of selling the electricity cheaply or burning it off and wasting the energy the energy producer has the option to secure a proof-of-work blockchain. Don’t blame the crypto-currency, blame the country that is burning the coal or oil. EDIT Moving forward, cyptos will actually favour the highly variable nature of renewable energy.

You said:

There’s is an estimated 7.1m millions active users (link) . They produce as much as Denmark ( 5 800 000 users).

Even if those numbers are accurate, the numbers will not scale in a linear way as more users enter the protocol. Not everyone is a miner, nor wants to be a miner, and especially with the Layer 2 Lightning and other improvements, more people will be able to use Bitcoin and the only thing that will change is the fee may go up a bit as busy times.

You say blame the bitcoin users that burn coal, but any system that we choose, whether fiat or bitcoin requires huge amounts of energy and currently, fossil fuels. Just because the energy used by fiat is not going directly into a strange, new, decentralised process called “mining”, it doesn’t mean that fiat isn’t hugely wasteful. Again think of all the daily commutes to work, think of printing and transporting money and metals and the need to train and vet experts that are needed to be flown around the world to verify and secure payments, think of the debt based finance system that relys on evermore growth in consumption of resources and energy so that the asset rich can continue to use their house prices as an ATM machine, think of the armored vehicles that need to be built used and powered, the office buildings that need to be lit with their many computers and needs to pump water up 20 floors, and the intellectual capital being wasted on fiat, when it could go towards far more productive endeavors, like financing the move to clean energy and renewables.

A bunch of computers that will be recycled and can operate on renewable energy is a lot better than the fiat system.

Fiat is far more wasteful than bitcoin, and as time goes on fiat will only get worse.

EDIT: If you take a broad look at the history of humanity, fiat currency can be seen as a tiny blip, and experiment gone horribly wrong. It was started by vested interests in 1915 and fully adopted to continue wars in the 1970’s and will end soon. It will go down as one of the most evil constructs, ever in human history that almost drove the planet into a mass extinction (if it doesn’t actually achieve that).

A lot of millennials are being fed data to serve vested interests. Since 2017/2018 I’ve noticed a concerted effort to tarnish Bitcoin in the eyes of the millennials, who like to think that they are ‘woke’ and unique in starting an environmental movement. Join the club. My boomer parents have been environmentalists, I was raised an environmentalist and have spent the past six years fighting the rot, at the local political level and only came close (31% of the primary vote) to having a small impact. I’ve kind of given up on the politicians, who are bought and paid for (or who want to be bought and paid for). Not having kids (or just having one), shopping ethically (yes, every dollar/bitcoin we spend is a vote), minimising meat intake, using the bike, buying and using renewable energies, growing and sharing food locally, and using bitcoin are simple grassroots ways to stop the rot. Bitcoin can run on renewables and doesn’t need vast amounts of energy because the protocol will automatically reduce the difficulty (and thus energy needed) as less energy is available. Disinformation pieces will not mention this.

If you want to have political impact, ask your local representative to embargo countries that sell and burn fossil fuels and that have poor environmental standards and poor working conditions (inequality fuels societal ills, general illness, and over-consumption).

What we are going through today is a transition, and the transition is going to be bumpy. Bitcoin itself will also change, and may even be usurped by a greater protocol, but all this is going to take time. No one can fully predict the future.

There is a concerted effort to tarnish Bitcoin. Either you have fallen for to the messaging or you are a well-funded drone. The fact that you have neglected the points raised about the progressive cases for bitcoin does make me wonder.

Why is my intuition incorrect? 0.224 BTC per quarter should not make a difference for any project.

I have just a few minutes, but …
@freekurt

Thanks for the links. I read them fast and I don’t agree with most of them. But I have a few days without internet this coming week. So as I plan a long post, you can expect my answer next week :wink:

@webDev

I understand what you’re saying about the fiat currency. I understand you want to promote cryptocurrencies ( even though I feel it will be an experience that is also going wrong).
But why shouldn’t we abandon Bitcoins to other cryptocurrencies that are better for the environment ? You can see bitcoin as the first step of R&D. There were some problems which were improved by others ( like the proof-of-work), now we can go the next step and abandon Bitcoins.

@nuntius35 You’d be hard-pressed to find someone on the planet, who would not be happy to get 0.224 bitcoins in a quarter for work that they are passionate about and do on a volunteer basis. :wink:

@TryingTo You say that there are better cryptos than bitcoin and that would not surprise me at the technical level. In hindsight I’m sure even the Bitcoin developers would probably wish they were able to tweak some elements from the beginning in 2009. Next week, when you can answer, maybe suggest which proof-of-work crypto that you support over bitcoin, rather than simply dumping on the most successful crypto and, in my opinion, the most sustainable currency/technology/protocol conceived to date.

I had unexpectedly access to internet today
so I can answer to @freekurt :slight_smile:

First thanks for the articles. I read them fully.

A few things bother me in this article.

digiconomist …

A recent report into crypto energy use, done by Coinshares, which is the only honest, data-driven report ever to be undertaken[4]

I just don’t know what to say … Talk about bias…

Ok I understand, so I won’t cite any digiconomist data from now now on.

This article was published the 29 Jan. ( 2019 as it doesn’t appear in the archive.org before ).

So indeed this great website https://www.cbeci.org/ didn’t exist

But this great report was already published , but only for a month, so maybe it wasn’t easily findable on the internet : https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf

Disclaimer :
I haven’t read the whole “report”

For a few reasons :

  • This embedded content is from a site that does not comply with the Do Not Track (DNT) setting now enabled on your browser.
  • I have to agree to weird Terms of Conditions
  • The description :
    This report isn’t perfect. It doesn’t pretend to have all of the necessary input data, but at least it starts with actual inputs and is based on tangible research, not some ass-backward, unscientific, biased guesstimate.
    If you insist I’ll read it , if you think that there are some interesting arguments.

1. Bitcoin’s Energy Usage Is A Major Component Of Its Network Security Model

… doesn’t concern us …

2. Prior Reports On Bitcoin’s Energy Footprint Were Greatly Exaggerated
Our calculations show prior reports overestimated by a factor of nearly two*.
Where our research produced an estimate of 35 TWh in mid-May, prior estimates had that at nearly double — 65 TWh

Don’t forget we are comparing the energy of just using some bitcoins transactions compared to the energy used by a whole country : so including energy used by industries, including by the inhabitants use to live for a whole year.

I would hope it would use less.

3. Hydro Power Actually Appears To Be The Primary Electricity Source Of The Bitcoin Mining Network

hmmm, if we read https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf page 84

Note: data is based on a dataset of 128 hashing facilities around the globe. Megawatt figures are available for 93 facilities.

Identified facilities draw on average 28% of their energy requirements from renewables

In the FAQ of cbeci.org it says

More recently, studies have shown that a growing share of total electricity consumption originates from renewable energy sources such as hydro, solar, and wind power. However, estimates are varying widely, ranging from approximately 20% 1 of the total energy mix to more than 70%.2

Notice that the 70% estimate is from Coinshares (2019) The Bitcoin Mining Network

4. ‘Migratory Miners’ Seasonally Move To Wherever Conditions Are Most Suitable (Profitable)

And ?

5. Annually, Network Hashrate Grows By ~300%, While Chip Efficiency Grows By ~80% And Chip Cost Per Hash Falls by ~50%

This means that every year, a miner’s dollar buys them nearly twice as much hashpower as the year before (CAPEX), and that new hashpower draws only a little more than half the electricity (OPEX).

(It also means it produces a lot of electronical waste.)

And ? Does it actually means that bitcoin will consume less per capita ?
What does it mean in the real world ? In 5 years, in 10 years ?
If someone can explain to me what is the implications, please do, because I read this it seems to me it’s an empty argument, but maybe i’m mistaken.

6. We’re Observing Increasing Geographical Distribution Among Miners

In the wake of the unfriendly policies towards Bitcoin miners adopted by the Chinese government we are observing an increase in miners setting up shop in the Nordic countries, Canada and north-western United States.

Common to all these locations are cool climates, availability of cheap renewable energy, high-speed internet and business-friendly governments.

Great ! ( and that’s true) but which percentage ?
And yeah , it means maybe less cooling, but does it means more renewables ?

For reference, there are approximately 85m PlayStation 4, 40m Xbox One and 15m Nintendo Wii U consoles distributed among global households (see our report for full list of sources). Their weighted average gameplay power draw is approximately 120W.
Assuming these gaming systems are played on a modern 40’’ LED TV drawing only 40W, for 4 hours a day, and idling for 20 hours a day, at a weighted average of 10W, they alone draw more power (4.9GW) than the entire bitcoin mining network.

I just put this argument because it made me angry.
Let’s compare gaming systems of 85 millions people using a system every day (!)for four hours (!) not bothering to click on the off button of their multisockets to bitcoins with only a few millions active users …

The magnitude in China alone is staggering. According to Reuters, citing the provincial governor Ruan Chengfa, in Yunnan Province alone 30 TWh of hydro power is wasted every year. Again, the entire Bitcoin mining network draws an annualised approximate 41 TWh at current rates.
Things are not much better in neighbouring Sichuan — home of an estimated 42% of all Bitcoin hashpower — where another Reuters article explains that the province’s total hydro capacity of 75 GW (versus Bitcoin’s 4.7 GW draw), is more than double the capacity of its grid! The implication being that power on the order of hundreds of TWh are wasted every year.

Actually, I find it’s the only interesting argument of all the articles.

( But remember argument 6 from the other article. everyone it going out of China which is a good thing, even though it seems China has surplus energy …)

But first thing first
( if you see https://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/research/centres/alternative-finance/downloads/2018-12-ccaf-2nd-global-cryptoasset-benchmarking.pdf)

  • Xinjiang which uses coal, inner mongolia and hebei all produces far more or about the same for Hebei as Sichuan. ( Yuhuan isn’t even on the map)

For example, in Yunnan province in south-west China, wind providers claim that they were required to compensate coal-fired power plants whose power was not being fully used. As Nick Mabey, the chief executive of the E3G think tank, has said, “China’s inflexible coal power stations means that it wastes 40 percent of the clean wind power it generates in some regions.”

Basically it seems, that you can only use wind ( and maybe hydro too) only if coal is fully used ! ( Maybe I’m overinterpreting things, I tried to find more but it’s really difficult)

For Sichuan , I found some articles ( but really old more than 5 years), and again it’s really difficult to find some information of what’s happenong now
https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/6347-The-battle-over-Yunnan-s-hydropower .
But basically due to some corruption and inner fighting, there is lots of waste of electricity.

Until the situation is resolved, maybe mining Bitcoins in Sichuan is actually ok. Even though, I think it would be better to use this surplus of electricty to produce some hydrogen like in some scottish islands http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20190327-the-tiny-islands-leading-the-way-in-hydrogen-power

Okay, leaving now, I’ll answer to @webDev afterwards. Brain is burning.

1 Like

I admire your passion but I do think you are getting in over your head a bit, mate.

I had a look at the Cambridge study. They did their best to make the numbers seem gargantuan but I think they failed. The UK could boil there kettles for 17 years with one year’s worth of bitcoining. The UK is 1% of earth’s population, so if everyone on earth had equal access to kettles, the population of earth would spend about 6 times more energy boiling water for their tea than securing the entire money supply and banking system.

I’m actually impressed by bitcoin.

Remember that bitcoin is being enhanced with Layer 2 tech that is making it quicker and cheaper, and with lower fees. Also bitcoin mining will not scale how you think it will. Not everyone will want to mine bitcoin. Also, mining will reward the miners with less bitcoin over time, and eventually will only reward the miner with the transaction fees, (only 21 million bitcoins will ever be in existance).

Are you starting to see how Bitcoin is not the enemy?

I would like to start a war on tea and kettles!!! Blasted things. You don’t even need to boil the water, in fact boiling water is bad for tea, grrrrrr. Start a campaign with me @TryingTo.

Mastodon