Quote from: Hell-raiser on February 01, 2018, 05:04:23 PM

Then the logic of your thought seems to suggest a rather frivolous and reckless thing. It is fixing the deficiency of one system, in this case the system which involves unrestricted money printing, with the strength of another, in this case the system based on monetary supply limited by a finite resource. But you seem not to care that the second system, despite its self-imposed monetary discipline, is a lot worse in and by itself than the first system whenever the latter has proper monetary discipline in place.

What is reckless or frivolous about imposing absolute discipline on inflating the money supply?

And I think you've been reading too much central bank friendly sources of information; the means by which the money supply can be expanded are many, and there is rarely any discipline as a consequence.

Quote from: J. Cooper on February 01, 2018, 07:57:37 PM

Quote from: J. Cooper on January 29, 2018, 09:14:06 PM

Bitcoin's proof of work mining system isn't good for the environment and we know that but it's extremely unfair to use that against bitcoin because there's a lot more electricity pollution on a much larger scale by bigger government backed corporations. So even if bitcoin would become proof of stake it won't cancel out all the environmental problems.

These guys shouldn't be worrying too much about the power consumption of bitcoin. Because as we speak the world is being polluted right left and center but you don't hear a word. Just look up the Canadian tar sands. It's a disgrace.

There is a dispute between scientists as to whether increases in CO₂ is the reason for climate change anyway. The climate has changed far more dramatically in the past without 0.01% increases in atmospheric CO₂.

Quote from: pixie85 on February 02, 2018, 02:45:22 AM

They are so stupid. Why doesn't the director say something about the electricity being wasted by appliances on standby? Why doesn't she mention the amount of electricity wasted by bank servers processing transactions? What about the computers run by clerks in every single bank branch? Bitcoin eliminates the need for branches, clerks and their computers. If you have people buying electricity and they want more get more them and profit from it instead of complaining!

There is a dispute between climate scientists as to whether increases in CO₂ is the reason for climate change anyway. The climate has changed far more dramatically in the past without 0.01% increases in atmospheric CO₂.

Quote from: Hell-raiser on February 02, 2018, 08:07:05 AM

I think she means something else, though it is hard to say since she doesn't say it directly. It seems she talks about the amount of electricity required to process transactions, and, honestly speaking, she has a point. If we removed the speculative part from Bitcoin, Bitcoin transactions would be very expensive in terms of electricity consumed. To put it differently, we could do the same with less, and this is what POS coins do. In this regard Bitcoin is very inefficient.

There is a dispute between climate scientists as to whether increases in CO₂ is the reason for climate change anyway. The climate has changed far more dramatically in the past without 0.01% increases in atmospheric CO₂.

"The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it"

Sorry to have to repeat this, but the whole world appears to be a victim of the constant repetition of this unproven CO₂ climate change theory. Scientists are in dispute about the veracity of the claims, but politicians love the idea, because it gives them and their corporate cronies more power over us. The carbon trading scheme being pushed as the solution to this problem puts the big villains of this piece very much in control; big CO₂ producers (i.e. corporate energy giants) can offset their CO₂ production by larger factors than anyone else, meaning they can accumulate the largest number of carbon credits. This gives them the power to set the prices of carbon credits, and therefore the price of the carbon taxes.

It might seem like righteous crusading now, when all you need to do to "be green" is ride a bicycle or buy local seasonal vegetables. But when your already very high tax burden gets increased even closer to 99% (it's typically above 50% now), let's see how you feel about this disputed science then. I'm not convinced, especially when politicians are the only ones that are unanimously in agreement.