this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
741 points (98.2% liked)
Technology
71446 readers
2257 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If bitcoin didn't use 40 terawatts to mine and was more reasonable in its electricity demand then I don't think that many people would care about it. It still wouldn't make it useful but at least it wouldn't be actively damaging the environment.
We might even be able to find a use for it at that point. But as it stands now the energy requirements essentially make the technology not worth it given the very minor benefits.
This is an argument for renewables, not fot shitcanning POW.
There are versions of cryptocurrencies that don't use massive amounts of energy.
Pick anything launched from Ethereum onwards.
You are glossing over 40% of a $3T market.
I'm not going to defend PoW (doge and monero are both pre Eth) but blockchain technology has moved on even if the fanboys haven't.
That's as irrational as saying no-one can use EVs until we get rid of all ICE vehicles.
Wait but that's like saying that as long as the world has at least one electric car the internal combustion engine can continue to exist without issue.
If the vast majority of cryptocurrencies are still power hungry and the most commonly used cryptocurrency is power hungry then the fact that some of the others are better doesn't really help.
No. PoS (EV makers) are not supporting the existence of PoW (ICE vehicles). In fact, one builder made a deliberate planned move from PoW to PoS. All new builders are PoS.
False. Remove Bitcoin (>100TWh) and the only PoW coin in the top 10 is DOGE (~4TWh).
The analogy doesn't stretch to allowing fiat to be compared to public transport.
A medium that is decimated when Trump shouts "Tariff" is not a gold standard.
Fiat is only the gold standard when it is backed by actual gold.
Dude, you brought the slop.
Saying PoS is supporting PoW is like saying EVs support ICEs.
Would you like another go at explaining how your half baked public transport analogy fits into this?
You said "we need more public transport". How does that statement map to Bitcoin?
What is the matching side of your analogy expansion?
ICE is to PoW
As
EVs is to PoS
As
Public transport is to ???
That side of the analogy is fine. How is public transport relevant to Bitcoin, Proof of Work and Proof of Stake?
What is the equivalent cryptocurrency concept that public transport is supposed to represent?
Oh great so if you remove bitcoin your argument works, trouble is, bitcoin exists
The only way to remove bitcoin is through redundancy.
Support it's successor technologies that improve on the design in every single dimension (including energy efficiency).
Your dislike of PoW is totally understandable.
Bitcoin maxis who dismiss all other blockchains as Alts are very much like climate deniers. They illogically block improvements and efficiencies in the Bitcoin protocol (e.g. block size increases).
However if enery usage is your main criticism then attacking PoS is like campaigning against wind or solar. We want PoS to completely replace PoW.
And nobody uses those, so that argument is mute.
False.
80% of transactions occur on solana and BNB. Only 1% of crypto transactions are on Bitcoin, which is in 9th place.