Not a conspiracy, just interests aligning and politics.
Supposedly on his blog there is no bad attitude towards women at all, quite the opposite.
There are people who searched it.
He is uncoruptable like Sokrates.
Probably the real reason.
The misstreated women is used over and over to stir up drama to remove uncorruptible people.
The uncorruptible part is clearly why every single company are against him.
They fear loosing power to good free opensource software, that does not sell people lives.
This what appears to be a storm in a glaswater drama just makes me trust him even more to be a genuine person.
And I don’t know much about him.
Maybe Bitcoin mining takes much energy but this “research” is ridiculous.
Each coin might be here for several thousands of years just like gold.
Soon perhaps within a decade most energy production will be sustainable.
It would be easy to forbidd unsustainable mining. If that were the case it would drive investment into sustainable energy.
But they can’t do that. It would mean losing a negative talking point.
There is a very big chance Bitcoin might even accelerate the race to fusion energy.
Bitcoin plus fusion energy could propell humanity into a new kind of era.
The protection from inflation Bitcoin provides makes corruption, dictatorship and fascism way more difficult.
Corruption often badly damages the environment.
Hard to put a value on that.
Bitcoin while there were still room in the blocks did solve that problem. Most people just didn’t and still don’t understand that. Just think of it as some kind of investment scheme or something used by criminals.
Thanks for the very good explanation!
According to Joe Sandbox Analysis:
If you love it. Do you contribute to supporting it with money? Talk is cheap :) It doesn’t help the developers as much.
I think it’s fair of people to sell their software. But I prefere if the software is open source, it gives the impression that the developers are honest.
Yes, that is what I meant by setting.
Perhaps even on a individual, per sub basis.
Some good point on any posts being public, but many follow a sub without posting, and might not want it to show for various reasons.
Could be political reasons, privacy reasons etc.
Agree. I think if Lemmy truly wants to be ethical those should not be shown or setting.
One way you could combat that would be to have posts anonymous lets say the first 24h. Since bots probably often upvote/downvote based on author rather than what is written content.
They might even follow some accounts and automatically downvote whenever that useraccount post in a sub.
Would remove/hinder some of the vote manipulation that plaques reddit.
Would also make humans downvote upvote less based on who wrote something as opposed to what was written.
One could take it even further by counting votes given to the post in the first 24h twice as much as later votes.
I also agree that in the long run POS is better. But the article seems like very alarmist propaganda since it is very scientifically incorrect.
Lots of problems.
The numbers in the article are made up or based on a pretty much speculative made up article.
Lightning network has just been made better allowing millions of transactions per second.
…Maybe that is why that hitpiece propaganda article was published…
The blocksize could be increased. I personally think it should but I can see why they don’t.
BCH is experimenting with a blocksize allowing 5000 tps.
The article talks about the limited amount if transactions. But not value transacted.
It claims Bitcoin is used for speculation while in reality it might be used for crossborder payments by money transmitters.
The negative effect on the environment have to take into conclusion anything that Bitcoin replaces or could replace.
If Bitcoin replace gold as store of value. It will decrease a lot of huge energy consumption and destruction of earth by goldminers.
If bitcoin replaces property speculation it will cause people to be less forced to take on huge debt. Since houseprices wont be pushed up by speculation. Removing speculation on houseprices would also shrink the risk of houseprice crashes which can have huge negative impacts on peoples lives.
People dont need to own bitcoins but the need to own a place to live.
Bitcoin looks to be able to replace much of both, as a store of value.
Its way too early to say that Bitcoin wont scale. And therefore it is useless.
The article states that is is propaganda that Bitcoin helps making green energy more profitable and affordable. And claims that miners are mining at night too.
How can the author know that miners do not decrease the mining when there is less overproduction of electricity?
It would not show up on the hashrate since the mining is distributed across the world.
Seems like a childish article that clearly does not come from a serious environmental activist considering it is based on lots of assumptions.
But rather someone who has an agenda.
Would be interesting to read a serious research of the effects of Bitcoin mining. Lots of mining are based on renewable energy and could actually be supporting it.
And it also does not follow that all energy consumption is bad. If it makes it more profitable to build a windturbine more people would turn to wind power as it would lower the time before it becomes proftable.
But I do understand that the article was probably published with support by some big entity who have a profit motive planning to try and disrupt the price of Bitcoin. And by publishing it they can then blame the ‘attacks’ on environmental activists.
I’m neither a hacker or someone who have to defend Bitcoin. If it is bad it’s bad, maybe it is or maybe it helps driving investment into renewables, and in that case it is probably good if true. But I personally would like to base my opinion, not on misinformation. The article seemed too biased too be trustworthy.
It was also kind of predictable that the energy consumption of Bitcoin would be attacked as soon as Ethereum changed to POS.
I belive that once most coins are created a CC should run on POS.
But would like to read some quality information and not that speculative medium article.
Great questions. Not sure how it would work and if we could make it work. I think MS is working on a solution. But I’m not sure it’s such a good idea if everyone on earth was dependent on the technology of one company for their identity.
I would strongly advice against using a clenched fist.
It can be associated with violence.
Do not use any symbols that could easily be misinterpreted.
A copyright symbol with wings?
A speechbubble with wings?
You dont get it.
Much of the energy used would be thrown away wasted. The mining use that energy that otherwise would just be overproduced and thrown away and convert it into coins, thus making production of renewable energy much more profitable than it would otherwise be and thus accelerating the expansion of renewable energy.
Thus it is not a crime, it actually helps motivating building more renewable energy.
When we have an decentralised global anonymous or private ID system, it would be the best and most fair way to distibute an decentralized currency.
Thus a decentralised global anonymous ID system would probably be the most important system in humanities evolution in order to create a fair world.
Neither you or I cant decide if it is wasting or not.
Its simply our opinion.
Proof of stake is simply giving new money for free to those who are already rich.
Proof of work means that there was a verifiable cost behind each coin produced, so was not just handed out for free to the rich.
It is way more distributed than wealth in the normal fiat system in which only a few owns 50% of all the wealth.
Unlike that system you are also free not to use it.
You also have the opportunity to get other coins or versions that are cheaper.
It’s negated all gains made by renewable energy
It’s negated all gains made by renewable energy
Last time there were research it was driven by 70% of renewable energy. More than most industries.
It actually increases investment into renewable energy by making it more profitable to produce renewable energy.