> they also make their place they live and the rest of the planet a tiny bit worse due to the energy consumption
replyEnergy consumption isn't the problem. It's how the energy is generated that is relevant to planetary health, and even then, whose to say the tradeoff isn't worth it. Crypto mining is estimated to take up 3% at most which means 97% is spent on other things. What makes this other 97% more worthy of this energy than crypto mining? The fact you don't see it as valuable?
Also many mining operations take advantage of stranded energy, so energy that would go to waste if not used for on-site mining.
But switching from Bitcoin to something based on proof of work is always going to use less energy. Bitcoin was innovative when it was invented, but now it’s antique, inefficient tech that’s still being used because apparently fame overwhelms all technological considerations.
replyThey’re more likely to use a stablecoin and those don’t use Bitcoin.
replyI checked the internet and it seems el salvador uses bitcoin while in lebanon there is a mix of bitcoin + Lightning and Tether.
replyTether is investing in US Bonds but 10% seem to be Bitcoin.
The El Salvador government bought Bitcoin and promoted it, but the reports I’ve seen suggest that ordinary people and businesses don’t use it much.
reply