Digital currencies are fundamentally changing the way we think about money and banking. The rapid rise of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, along with the
Id love a digital currency system to bypass banks and credit card companies trying to legislate. But the scaling power consumption of crypto is fundamentally unsustainable
I don’t really see the appeal of currency anarchy in general. Do the proponents of that really think that the power in that space wouldn’t be held by what essentially amounts to digital currency warlords (anyone with a lever to apply power and the matching lack of morals to do so)? Not to mention that some regulation of finances are a good thing, it is not as if every currency intervention by central banks is done for bad reasons.
Do the proponents of that really think that the power in that space wouldn’t be held by what essentially amounts to digital currency warlords (anyone with a lever to apply power and the matching lack of morals to do so)?
Why do you think those proponents and digital warlords are separate people?
I do see that appeal, because we have already seen that surveilled KYC transactions are undesirable in many situations, like if you’re making a donation to a dissident. While indeed, crypto cannot scale enough to be a primary method of payment - it still needs to be there as an alternative pathway.
I agree that scaling power comsumption is unsustainable - both ecologically and ecoomically!
But power consumption is no inherent attribute of crypto, but a design choice.
Bitcoin just refuses to adjust.
Ethereum did that not very long ago.
What I’m trying to say is: there are designs available that operate at a very tiny power consumption.
Don’t lump all crypto together with Bitcoin.
Id love a digital currency system to bypass banks and credit card companies trying to legislate. But the scaling power consumption of crypto is fundamentally unsustainable
I don’t really see the appeal of currency anarchy in general. Do the proponents of that really think that the power in that space wouldn’t be held by what essentially amounts to digital currency warlords (anyone with a lever to apply power and the matching lack of morals to do so)? Not to mention that some regulation of finances are a good thing, it is not as if every currency intervention by central banks is done for bad reasons.
Why do you think those proponents and digital warlords are separate people?
I do see that appeal, because we have already seen that surveilled KYC transactions are undesirable in many situations, like if you’re making a donation to a dissident. While indeed, crypto cannot scale enough to be a primary method of payment - it still needs to be there as an alternative pathway.
I agree that scaling power comsumption is unsustainable - both ecologically and ecoomically!
But power consumption is no inherent attribute of crypto, but a design choice.
Bitcoin just refuses to adjust.
Ethereum did that not very long ago.
What I’m trying to say is: there are designs available that operate at a very tiny power consumption.
Don’t lump all crypto together with Bitcoin.