844
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2025
844 points (100.0% liked)
memes
16586 readers
2112 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, but one is extra bad for our enviroment while being a scam.
That's what i thought, too. I would never believed if someone telled me some years ago that there will be another scam (ai) that wastes even more power.
Just wait until somebody proposes an AI powered blockchain…
The ultimate techbro venn diagram.
💀. Thats darker than anything else.
Stop giving them ideas
I seriously thought your punchline was going to be the pacific garbage patch from all that extra consumption we've encouraged.
totally agree re bitcoin, and also am very sceptical of crypto as a mass-adopted currency in general
however there are plenty of networks that don’t use proof of work to validate their chains, and they aren’t bad for the environment to nearly the same degree
Why use them and not.. normal fiat currency?
No bank or goverment can control it. It is the benefit of being able to send money to anyone around the world while maintaining ownership of your money as if it were cash in hand.
Banks or governments as opposed to who though? There's a reason we usually want those publicly owned and regulated institutions to handle our transactions. Obviously, it depends what country you live in, and what currency you're talking about. But I don't think Bitcoin or any other cryptocurrency actually solves the problem it purports to.
Ideally, no one controls it. It's just exists as a medium for exchange.
There are both good and bad points to currency have value that can be adjusted by gov'ts; crypto currency solves one set of problems, but has it's own, inherent issues.
You're not really selling it for me, which I guess is the point aye? 😂
What I imagine as ideal is an open-source and transparent bank and payment system that issues its own currency backed by ties to its investment portfolio that is properly regulated by its host country. i.e. you would use their currency to trade among others on the platform according to the percentage value of their portfolio that you own as measured by the currency to which you which to convert your holdings for a given purchase. You could select different tiers of risk if you'd like your "savings" to grow in value over time but experience potential dips or even loss of value if there is major market stability.
I am not an expert on such things, but this at least has real links to tangible asset worth, and isn't based on the artificial scarcity of an increasingly unsolvable math problem.
Well, kind of. But the worth of those assets is largely due to perception, rather than real utility value. Like, real estate is stupidly expensive in many places, but it's expensive because people believe that it's expensive. When real estate bubble burst, you see the 'worth' of that real estate drop sharply. The utility value is having a place to sleep, but it's often treated as an investment. So you would still see currency value fluctuations. Currency issue by gov'ts largely has worth because the gov't says that it has worth; it's not tied to anything. (BTW - tying currency to a tangible asset limits your ability to add currency when necessary. It will tend to lead to depreciation--the value of the currency rising--which is usually a bad thing.)
The other problem is that corporations and banks go bust; if they were issuing currency, that would mean all your money would instantly be worthless.
That is exactly the problem. It has no real value as the entire thing is propped up by chaos. It could be worth a trillion dollars one day and then nothing the next.
And therefore no recourse if you are robbed, scammed, etc. Try going to your local, or even federal authorities and explain to them that you lost the digital equivalent of $10000 and they won’t do a thing.
You can opt in to an arbitrator before sending the money.
And that helps you how in the event of a theft?
It prevents the theft in the first place because they'd need to hack two parties instead of just one.
Wow, are you really that clueless about crypto stealing malware, Fraud by crypto exchanges, Authentication attacks, etc?
None of those sorts of attacks would be prevented by the use any sort of escrow service because you’re not actively performing a transaction.
An Analysis of the first half of this year also shows a significant uptick in attacks on personal crypto wallets, and over $2 billion stolen so far in 2025.
How is malware going to steal funds locked in escrow?
Until some guy in LA hires a bunch of moonlighting police officers to steel your laptop
Yup, just like cash.
They are still very unstable and rely on some sort of consensus. It is flat out a bad design. It would be safer to pay with stocks.
consensus is basically what all modern databases rely on… it’s not unstable; it has properties that need to be well known and accounted for
The problem is using that for something world wide with no backing by anything material.
It is unstable by nature
i tend to agree for mass-adopted currency, but mass currency is only 1 use case for blockchain
things like bank to bank transfers (think a replacement to swift: with semi trusted entities like a big group of banks, the proof functions can be both extremely efficient and fast whilst remaining scalable and distributed so nobody has control… of course this would be a private network, but every bank involved can audit and sign off on transactions)
blockchain at its core is an immutable log between untrusted parties… it can be used to prove a particular thing happened at a particular point, in situations where people don’t even trust governments etc to maintain accurate records
it’s too big and cumbersome to be used by everyone in the world for payment, but it’s a good facilitator of some niche things that most people won’t have any idea about
the technology is solid; it’s just very limited, and the most “profitable” and marketable uses are also the most ill-suited
I am NOT a crypto fan, but not all cryptocurrencies are bad for the environment. Ethereum is proof of stake.
Over 52% of the bitcoin network is renewable energy and growing. Y’all need to update your info, damn
Yes, but that still means that the other half is fossil fuel.
I think people should really reconsider using PoW cryptocurrencies. Ethereum was able to reduce their energy consumption by 99.95% by switching to PoS and it's still doing fine. IMO Bitcoin is outdated technology that is just used as a pyramid scheme due to its name recognition.
Compared to our current system though? How much does the entire banking and credit card industry contribute to emissions for almost the same service? Bitcoin incentivises energy companies to mine BTC with excess energy.
The current systems used by VISA use significantly less energy compared to PoW cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin
statista.com - Bitcoin average energy consumption per transaction compared to that of VISA as of January 19, 2025
Ethereum was able to cut their energy usage down drastically by moving away of PoW. Windmills and clean energy aren't the solution, getting rid of PoW is. Why build more solar farms if you could just not use so much electricity?
BULLSHIT.
You aren't computing the cost in blood, censorship, wasted time, the lives employed by these evil orgs wasting their lives scamming people, the loss of revenue from value-producing business, the waste of banking cards, and the COUNTLESS other energy-guzzling mechanisms involved.
Bitcoin eliminates ALL these problems. It is by far more efficient, it isn't even close. Also, it isn't a payment system like visa, what an ignorant ass comparison. It is literally a sovereign currency with publicly auditable minting & ledgers. It replaces MONEY. Payment processors are built on top of it.
Yea, even the shit visa and mastercard can switch to payment processing on top of Bitcoin. It would actually be beneficial. When they decline a transaction you just directly use the network instead.
Btw PoS is also bullshit, in a completely different and inferior class of crypto. It requires HUMAN CONSENT to enter the network. PoW requires COMPUTATIONAL CONSENT. PoW lets anyone into the network if they can follow the rules of minting. This is HUGE when talking about a freedom-preserving system.
Put more simply, PoS systems are aristocracy owning an apple orchard (you ask an authority if they are allowed to take an apple), PoW is like an apple orchard deep in the woods that anyone can take from (you just have to walk there). Understand the difference?
One OWNS THE ORCHARD. They will protect it from people they deem unauthorized. They demand people go through them for permission. It is no different than what we have now, abstracted further and digitized.
I think I haven’t explained myself properly. I will admit it seems bitcoin uses more energy in this case. However, we’re comparing Bitcoins entire currency system with that of a processor of fiat. I’m on mobile right now but I would like to see that comparison for arguments sake, bitcoin ecosystem vs fiat ecosystem (including mining, storing and transport of gold)
Ah, moving the goal posts, aren't we?
Did you know that gold has nothing to do with the fiat ecosystem? In fact, the whole point of the word fiat in fiat ecosystem means that it is not based on gold at all. And if you include gold in the equation because some people use fiat to buy or sell gold, then you need to include gold in the energy costs of bitcoin as well, since people also use bitcoin to buy/sell gold.
They're not moving the goalposts.
Gathering / transporting valuables is not a part of the fiat ecosystem. The value of fiat currency does not depend on any underlying materials (like gold, silver, etc.) like the currencies before.
I think what I'd suggest is that the entire global banking and credit card industry is likely to contribute more in total to our climate catastrophe, just due to the difference in scale between that and a relatively small and lesser-used alternative like Bitcoin.
I do see where you’re coming from for sure. I just think it’s worth noting where it is and where it’s going given it’s managed to grow to 52% in an anti bitcoin world. If bitcoin allows to be “legitimatised” I think those goals are achievable
It should also be noted, that using more power isn't fine just because it's renewable. It's still worse for the environment, and especially not until it's 100%
The ASICS also produce e-waste, the electricity could have been used for other things, and the energy use puts more strain on the energy grid when that is already an issue in many countries.