Well those are suprisingly agressive answers...

Maybe I missed the board, but it is called also technical discussion. I am talking about technical details of the implementation, so I might be off but not too far. Sorry if you feel like this ended up in the wrong place.


> And just how much energy does the world's leading alternative consume??  The energy FUD is a bunch of nonsense.

Do you have data to back that up? You seem to be very angry on me, I mean no harm, but clearly seem to have hit a nerve I did not intend to. If it is all FUD all is good, would welcome if you could send me the data that proofs this statement wrong.


> No.  Because....  It's decentralized.  There is no authority that gets to decide.  You want to force mining onto renewables?  Make renewables cheaper.  Mining is driven by profit, it will tend towards the cheapest electricity.

Please calm down... . Can you maybe get your emotions under control and read what I actually write. Everyone including me knows all that. I made the point that the energy consumption of bitcoin could be for good if it is driving development of renewable forward by giving them even more funding.


> There are not.  There will never be.

Why not? That is exactly what I wanted to know, what is the rationale? Is everything bad? If there is an actually feasible alternative, what is bad about adopting it?

> it seems you misunderstand the basics.  The only way to change any consensus rule is for ALL users to agree.

no i did not understand any single thing. Of course I know that.



Whatever, I didn't expect such a toxic answer, I honestly asked what is the state and are alternative considered and if not why not. I really don't know what is wrong with that. This really felt like questioning a religion instead of questioning the status quo.