Bitcoin Stands as a Potential Environmental Nightmare for Countering Global Warming - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Xyrec;52953851]Vatican City uses that much electricity? :thinking:[/QUOTE] Pope has to play Undertale somehow

[QUOTE=Destroyox;52958351]Pope has to play Undertale somehow[/QUOTE] His copy was infected with a bitcoin miner.

didn't someone from here start doing a uni theory on this lol

Since I just saw the thread again: [URL="https://archive.is/fiDyX"][media]https://twitter.com/feross/status/939296306987700225[/media][/URL] I don't know where the power consumption from, but I assume it's some estimate based on the current network hash rate and available hardware.

The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry are the same ones who want to automate everything away and reduce the number of "surplus" humans messing up their lovely lawn. It stands to reason therefore, that the media, who ultimately are funded by the same sources would be keen to parrot the talking point.

Oh god Alex Jones is here. [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] Like what is it gonna be today? Why is the idea of running a ton of GPUs to secure transactions requiring a lot of energy that alien to you that you have to resort to conspiracy theories?

[QUOTE=_Axel;52962686]Oh god Alex Jones is here. [editline]10th December 2017[/editline] Like what is it gonna be today? Why is the idea of running a ton of GPUs to secure transactions requiring a lot of energy that alien to you that you have to resort to conspiracy theories?[/QUOTE] This is not a battle you want to get in the middle of. Absolutely everything is a conspiracy theory to that dude unless it explicitly supports things he likes. And even then, it could just be a psy-op to fuck with him. I honestly would love to know what drugs/ head injuries someone would have to suffer to go from a once quite capable contributor to the community to...[I]this[/I]. Trying to deny that this weird increase in cryptocurrency development and mining would have zero impact on the environment is asinine. We're now using more computing power than ever before to calculate positively pointless shit for some currencies that are fucking terrible currencies. Of course this extra computing power is going to require more energy and therefore create more CO2 as most of the world still generates their power from shitty sources.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52962597]The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry are the same ones who want to automate everything away and reduce the number of "surplus" humans messing up their lovely lawn. It stands to reason therefore, that the media, who ultimately are funded by the same sources would be keen to parrot the talking point.[/QUOTE] Provide proof for absolutely anything in this post or everyone will rightfully perceive it as a content-less shitpost.

[QUOTE=phygon;52963481]Provide proof for absolutely anything in this post or everyone will rightfully perceive it as a content-less shitpost.[/QUOTE] Let's use logical deduction. 1) "The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry" People who own and operate central banks benefit from their continued operation. To claim that they do not would be strange. 2) "the same ones who want to automate everything away and reduce the number of "surplus" humans messing up their lovely lawn" If you are in the business of making money, you want to maximize profits and reduce wastage. From a corporate standpoint, people don't want to employ more people than they need. If you're in the banking industry, you offer lines of credit into (ultimately) the whole of society for the purpose of keeping the economy going and keeping the profit from the interest on the loans coming in. People know that they can use technology across society in order to not have to pay as many people for their work in order achieve the same level (or better) of efficiency. Therefore it stands to reason that it is in their financial interests to not be paying humans, but to be using computers and eventually AI instead, which is less wasteful for them. Many of the individuals who own these financial services institutions are or have been members of think tanks (such as Club Rome) that are involved in public focus on environmental issues, real or imagined, for societal change toward centralization. 3) "It stands to reason therefore, that the media, who ultimately are funded by the same sources would be keen to parrot the talking point." The media, like any business, needs lines of credit in order to be able to produce programming, hire actors, etc. Often, in order to get loans, they have to meet certain conditions. It seems extremely likely to me that the opportunity for banks to place conditions on programme output exists. If not directly, then certainly through kickbacks and special favors. This is the reasoning for my opinion. I'm sorry if "only proof" is good enough. You can't 100% prove anything in this world, but I don't think that what I have written is likely to be far from the truth. If what I have written annoys or irritates you, that's unfortunate.

Your way of looking at things is laughably infantile tbh. Starting with "the media" as a whole and it just continues with "produce programming, hire actors" and so on. All in all it culminates in this weird anti-bitcoin theory of yours. The numbers don't lie, bitcoin right now is really fucking useless and your "someone is behinnd this" thinking doesn't make the numbers go away.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52963652]Let's use logical deduction. 1) "The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry" People who own and operate central banks benefit from their continued operation. To claim that they do not would be strange. 2) "the same ones who want to automate everything away and reduce the number of "surplus" humans messing up their lovely lawn" If you are in the business of making money, you want to maximize profits and reduce wastage. From a corporate standpoint, people don't want to employ more people than they need. If you're in the banking industry, you offer lines of credit into (ultimately) the whole of society for the purpose of keeping the economy going and keeping the profit from the interest on the loans coming in. People know that they can use technology across society in order to not have to pay as many people for their work in order achieve the same level (or better) of efficiency. Therefore it stands to reason that it is in their financial interests to not be paying humans, but to be using computers and eventually AI instead, which is less wasteful for them. Many of the individuals who own these financial services institutions are or have been members of think tanks (such as Club Rome) that are involved in public focus on environmental issues, real or imagined, for societal change toward centralization. 3) "It stands to reason therefore, that the media, who ultimately are funded by the same sources would be keen to parrot the talking point." The media, like any business, needs lines of credit in order to be able to produce programming, hire actors, etc. Often, in order to get loans, they have to meet certain conditions. It seems extremely likely to me that the opportunity for banks to place conditions on programme output exists. If not directly, then certainly through kickbacks and special favors. This is the reasoning for my opinion. I'm sorry if "only proof" is good enough. You can't 100% prove anything in this world, but I don't think that what I have written is likely to be far from the truth. If what I have written annoys or irritates you, that's unfortunate.[/QUOTE] You ever heard of Occam's razor?

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52963652]Let's use logical deduction. 1) "The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry" People who own and operate central banks benefit from their continued operation. To claim that they do not would be strange.[/QUOTE] Dude do you even know what central banks are and why they exist.

[QUOTE=FlakTheMighty;52956117]I don't live in a cold place, but we have a Dell plant here with a lot of very large servers that use the heat generated from the servers to warm the building during the winter. I've always found that kind of stuff fascinating.[/QUOTE] I'm literally using my home server to do just that at the moment. It's like 20 F outside and it sometimes gets so hot in here I have to put a fan in the window. edit: and it uses less power than running a space heater.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52963652]Let's use logical deduction. 1) "The individuals who have the most to lose from the success of cryptocurrency due to the potential impact on their industry" People who own and operate central banks benefit from their continued operation. To claim that they do not would be strange. 2) "the same ones who want to automate everything away and reduce the number of "surplus" humans messing up their lovely lawn" If you are in the business of making money, you want to maximize profits and reduce wastage. From a corporate standpoint, people don't want to employ more people than they need. If you're in the banking industry, you offer lines of credit into (ultimately) the whole of society for the purpose of keeping the economy going and keeping the profit from the interest on the loans coming in. People know that they can use technology across society in order to not have to pay as many people for their work in order achieve the same level (or better) of efficiency. Therefore it stands to reason that it is in their financial interests to not be paying humans, but to be using computers and eventually AI instead, which is less wasteful for them. Many of the individuals who own these financial services institutions are or have been members of think tanks (such as Club Rome) that are involved in public focus on environmental issues, real or imagined, for societal change toward centralization. 3) "It stands to reason therefore, that the media, who ultimately are funded by the same sources would be keen to parrot the talking point." The media, like any business, needs lines of credit in order to be able to produce programming, hire actors, etc. Often, in order to get loans, they have to meet certain conditions. It seems extremely likely to me that the opportunity for banks to place conditions on programme output exists. If not directly, then certainly through kickbacks and special favors. This is the reasoning for my opinion. I'm sorry if "only proof" is good enough. You can't 100% prove anything in this world, but I don't think that what I have written is likely to be far from the truth. If what I have written annoys or irritates you, that's unfortunate.[/QUOTE] So its our fault that we get annoyed that all you have is logical deductions that a 5 year old would question quite easily. Well shit, I have nothing to come back with that.

[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52963791]I'm literally using my home server to do just that at the moment. It's like 20 F outside and it sometimes gets so hot in here I have to put a fan in the window. edit: and it uses less power than running a space heater.[/QUOTE] I usually have to turn down the heat in my house whenever I play Overwatch on max settings, my room is small and cramped and heats up very fast. It's funny to think about Overwatch being a makeshift space heater.

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52963652]If what I have written annoys or irritates you, that's unfortunate.[/QUOTE] What annoys me is that you managed to somehow un-say that you believed that the people involved in this wanted to cull humans. Not out of jobs, just cull. What's more, you said it in a way that implied that the people that were doing it were themselves [I]not[/I] human. Please explain.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52952553]Huh, thats pretty amazing to think that so much energy is being used up by computers basically crunching useless numbers. Imagine if the blockchain had been built around doing useful work like genome sequencing, what could have been done by now.[/QUOTE] I wonder if you could make a cryptocurrency that also serves to do genome sequencing.

[QUOTE=ASIC;52986640]I wonder if you could make a cryptocurrency that also serves to do genome sequencing.[/QUOTE] There already is. It's tied into BOINC but it's really complicated to set it up.

[QUOTE=ASIC;52986640]I wonder if you could make a cryptocurrency that also serves to do genome sequencing.[/QUOTE] The bottleneck for DNA sequencing (or most experimental science for that matter) is not computational. Parallel computing projects usually focus on computationally intensive tasks that can be broken down into smaller bits, such as modelling protein folding or quantum chemical calculations.

[QUOTE=Harbie;52955575]I know it's not the main point of your argument, but that's not true as far as AI is concerned. The training data needed is huge, yes, but disk is very cheap and very dense, and doesn't consume nearly as much power as GPUs do. Actual power used by AI is trivial, especially compared to Bitcoin, and drastically decreasing with time. The initial AlphaGo training hardware in 2016 used 48 Machine learning ASICs on a distributed system. Currently, it performs better than it did in 2016 on a single machine with only 4 machine learning ASICs.[/QUOTE] They are doing WHAT with my clones?

[QUOTE=ph:lxyz;52963652]Let's use logical deduction. This is the reasoning for my opinion. I'm sorry if "only proof" is good enough. You can't 100% prove anything in this world, but I don't think that what I have written is likely to be far from the truth. If what I have written annoys or irritates you, that's unfortunate.[/QUOTE] Satire? Just I've seen other posts from this guy and they're pretty far out. Biggest irony of bitcoin is they're mostly owned by big businessmen and investors now, you think you're sticking it to the man but when the bubble bursts it'll be the man sticking it to you. Rather than trying to discredit critics by saying they're all bankers or paid by bankers consider the possibility that bitcoin isn't sustainable and that it's not the solution to the problem of centralisation.