What genuine benefit? It’s useless as currency. It burns up fossil fuels more efficiently than those gigantic container ships. And it inflicts the dunning-krugerrand fans on the rest of the Innarwebtubes. That’s a hat trick of suction, that is.
you’re joking right? the intention of btc was to be a decentralised and anonymous method of payments, away from the swift monopoly, you can’t blame cryptocurrency for being treated as a profit machine by monopolisers; China and US being the biggest culprits. The environmental “risk” only began when it was seen as a security instead of a currency. Plus China isn’t banning it for environmental friendliness lmfao they’re making their own regulated version.
And it inflicts the dunning-krugerrand fans on the rest of the Innarwebtubes.
Called it!
No, I’m not joking. Not in the slightest. Cryptocurrency is the (semi-mythical) tulip bulb craze all over again.
btc was to be a decentralised and anonymous method of payments
It. Can’t. Be. This.
I mean seriously, there is no way on Earth that a transaction processor that can manage 10 transactions per second worldwide can in any way be a serious payment system. It’s off in capabilities by several orders of magnitude.
And this was something that was known about it from inception. The people who made Bitcoin weren’t stupid people. They knew damned well that it was too slow to be usable and, worse, would get slower and slower over time. They knew this and called it a currency anyway, suckering a bunch of people into trying to use it as one until it caught on as an “investment” at which point the combined fiscal and environmental disaster reached feverish heights.
you can’t blame cryptocurrency for being treated as a profit machine by monopolisers
Sure I can, especially given that it was so obviously designed to be this. (I can also blame it for being a deflationary currency even if it were designed to be a workable currency.)
Plus China isn’t banning it for environmental friendliness
Of course they aren’t. Since, however, I made no such claim your inserting this sounds an awful lot like bullshit argumentation through misdirection.
lmfao they’re making their own regulated version.
You have technical details on their implementation to share? No? Then I’d suggest you sit back down until they’re made available. Given the sheer scale of what their project entails, it’s pretty clear that they’re not doing “proof of work” as the mechanism. (That pesky transactions/s thing rears its ugly head.) Since it’s the “proof of work” mechanism that is the source of the environmental disaster … well I’ll leave the conclusion as an exercise for the (particularly thick) student.
What genuine benefit? It’s useless as currency. It burns up fossil fuels more efficiently than those gigantic container ships. And it inflicts the dunning-krugerrand fans on the rest of the Innarwebtubes. That’s a hat trick of suction, that is.
you’re joking right? the intention of btc was to be a decentralised and anonymous method of payments, away from the swift monopoly, you can’t blame cryptocurrency for being treated as a profit machine by monopolisers; China and US being the biggest culprits. The environmental “risk” only began when it was seen as a security instead of a currency. Plus China isn’t banning it for environmental friendliness lmfao they’re making their own regulated version.
Called it!
No, I’m not joking. Not in the slightest. Cryptocurrency is the (semi-mythical) tulip bulb craze all over again.
It. Can’t. Be. This.
I mean seriously, there is no way on Earth that a transaction processor that can manage 10 transactions per second worldwide can in any way be a serious payment system. It’s off in capabilities by several orders of magnitude.
And this was something that was known about it from inception. The people who made Bitcoin weren’t stupid people. They knew damned well that it was too slow to be usable and, worse, would get slower and slower over time. They knew this and called it a currency anyway, suckering a bunch of people into trying to use it as one until it caught on as an “investment” at which point the combined fiscal and environmental disaster reached feverish heights.
Sure I can, especially given that it was so obviously designed to be this. (I can also blame it for being a deflationary currency even if it were designed to be a workable currency.)
Of course they aren’t. Since, however, I made no such claim your inserting this sounds an awful lot like bullshit argumentation through misdirection.
You have technical details on their implementation to share? No? Then I’d suggest you sit back down until they’re made available. Given the sheer scale of what their project entails, it’s pretty clear that they’re not doing “proof of work” as the mechanism. (That pesky transactions/s thing rears its ugly head.) Since it’s the “proof of work” mechanism that is the source of the environmental disaster … well I’ll leave the conclusion as an exercise for the (particularly thick) student.