filter: 💡 🐦 🏟 👽 📺 🐘💰

👽

> already is better for the environment than traditional banking, This is very far off. When comparing to traditional banks, I think you aren't taking into account the absolutely tiny amount of practical financial matters that currently occur in bitcoin and the mindboggling excessive amount of electricity required for them. Currently Bitcoin makes up less than 0.1% of the financial transactions occuring in the world today (and it's debatable how much of that is really of value and not just due to speculation), and yet it uses only half as much energy as all of traditional banking combined. You see, all those resources you listed that are associated with traditional banking are necessary because almost every person in the world is in some way relying on the traditional financial system and there needs to be infrastructure for connecting between day-to-day usage of money and the monetary network. Most of those environmental impacts would still exist PLUS you'd have the incomprehensible cost of the proof of work system on top of that. You have to compare the energy consumption for an equal amount of transactions as the current banking system. And when you look at it that way, if Bitcoin were to be used for an equal amount of financial activity, it would actually be using up more than currently THE ENTIRE WORLD'S ELECTRICITY SUPPLY. That was the stat that boggled my mind and imho there's really no excuse for anyone to touch Bitcoin once they grapple with that. Edit: but I totally agree that if and when Ethereum updates to proof of stake then that should be scalable and comparable to the existing infrastructure (but it honestly remains to be seen if proof of stake gets adopted)