• rastilin@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can’t believe they won’t just use Bitcoin. If the EU weighs in then Bitcoin would probably get much more stable through sheer inertia. “But then they won’t be able to control it” I hear you say. Good, Bitcoin not being able to be diluted by any one government to try and tamper with the economy is one of its upsides. Slower economic growth is a perfectly fine tradeoff for not having 10% inflation year over year like we have the last few years and economists are basically the modern version of oracular priests reading the stars and just as reliable.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      According to studies published in Joule and American Chemical Society in 2019, bitcoin’s annual energy consumption results in annual carbon emission ranging from 17 to 22.9 MtCO 2 which is comparable to the level of emissions of countries as Jordan and Sri Lanka.

      Fuck Bitcoin.

      • nicman24@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        most bitcoin operations are from nuclear or other renewables because they have an economic incentive to do so. ya dum dum

    • Nighed@sffa.community
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t cryptocurrencies have problems with ledger size and processing speed at this size.

      And don’t the processing nodes require some sort of tip to process transactions?

      Using crypto would probably result in slower, more complicated payments, while confusing many less techy people. (Who would just end up using some kind of exchange - at which point you could just use this or a bank )