"whataboutism" is a twitter stop word to kill reason. It's hypocritical to aggressively combat one energy waster whilst allowing or even demanding 200 others. It shows one doesn't care about energy usage or the environment at all, only about the ones they deem useful to themselves. Which is subjective.
Yes, Bitcoin will always be deflationary. I personally am not convinced it will eat up all wealth in the world in the way a maximalist believes it will. As said earlier, I'm thinking 10T max.
Should it grow to contain much more value, Bitcoin is more likely to be expressed as sats by default, and owning a full coin would be rare. Many want to do this right now due to unit bias. Newbies tend to prefer a 0.3$ shitcoin like Dogecoin over a coin as expensive as a luxury car.
Layer 2 solutions can work with a fraction of a sat, yet they can't settle this fraction on the core BTC network, nor would this make sense in terms of transaction costs. So I think they use some kind of buffering mechanism for that.
> "whataboutism" is a twitter stop word to kill reason.
That's not how I use it, at least. I use it as "stop changing the subject", and "two wrongs doesn't make a right".
What am I supposed to say to this distraction, if you're triggered by the word whataboutism?
> It's hypocritical to aggressively combat one energy waster whilst allowing or even demanding 200 others.
If that were the only thing about blockchain, then maybe. But it's not.
But also no, I don't think it's hypocritical in that abstraction level. There are doctors out there who want to help people, yet are not working on malaria. That doesn't make them hypocrits on malaria.
Yes, there is arguably hypocracy. Just like how you would save a drowning child if you walk past them, but you won't give $2 to feed a starving child on another continent, or $10 for a malaria net.
Maybe you actually do. But even then I'm saying you'll ruin your nice shoes to save the drowning child, but then you'll buy new shoes instead of using that money to save another life.
And then we have descended into a completely different point from the value of bitcoin. It's a distraction. You've effectively changed the subject to not have to discuss that you're making the world worse by pumping bitcoin.
In a world where children starve and die from malaria we don't have to discuss any issue at all. How convenient.
I'm not triggered by the word "whataboutism" or "two wrongs don't make a right", they are just word plays to end a discussion.
The way I see it, nobody really cares about emissions, energy use, pollution, the environment...at all. Most people commenting on Bitcoin are likely to enjoy a US middle class existence, or even upper middle class.
They have ACs running all day, 50 electric appliances in their home, move themselves with 2 tons of steel, indulge in purchasing clothes made from slavery in Bangladesh, consumables stiff from palm oil (destroying rain forests), likely regularly eat meat, take airline flights, and produce tons of plastic trash.
The above lifestyle, if it were to be deployed globally, would require 6-8 planet earths, by estimation. Yet there's no concerted outrage, call for regulation, outright bans on any single aspect of it. Obviously because that would mean giving up comforts you enjoy yourself. As it comes to principles, people have none as soon they are tested.
Therefore, it's much easier to attack something you don't use or understand, as there's no personal cost to it. I reject your environmental abuse yet will defend mine.
Still, its a fair and valid point that in a world of environmental collapse, adding to the pile doesn't help. I'm with you on that. I'm optimistic that it will be resolved, and rather quickly. Mining will pretty rapidly become renewable, CO2 neutral, focus on stranded energy, etc. A headline may be forthcoming this week even.
Dogecoin is shit because the creator says it's shit. When interviewed about its purpose, inflation scheme, energy usage, he openly admitted he considered nothing at all. It was a joke. Dogecoin has no functionality nor scarcity. It doesn't even have a development team.
Still, the joke is widespread enough for it to sustain for quite a while. If only enough people hold it, a full crash to zero becomes less likely.
The main differences with Bitcoin would be scarcity, the network effect, institutional adaption, L2 solutions, exchange support, ETF funds, etc.
The difference between a "serious" coin and a shitcoin is easy to see in price movement. When BTC dumps, say 30%, a shitcoin dumps 80%. A shitcoin is speculation only, whilst a serious coin is speculation combined with long term value, or the belief in long term value.
Yes, Bitcoin will always be deflationary. I personally am not convinced it will eat up all wealth in the world in the way a maximalist believes it will. As said earlier, I'm thinking 10T max.
Should it grow to contain much more value, Bitcoin is more likely to be expressed as sats by default, and owning a full coin would be rare. Many want to do this right now due to unit bias. Newbies tend to prefer a 0.3$ shitcoin like Dogecoin over a coin as expensive as a luxury car.
Layer 2 solutions can work with a fraction of a sat, yet they can't settle this fraction on the core BTC network, nor would this make sense in terms of transaction costs. So I think they use some kind of buffering mechanism for that.