It was supposed to be a financial revolution. Instead, crypto has become an environmentally disastrous gift to con artists, says academic David A Banks
Look, cryptobros have been pushing cryptocurrencies using cherry-picked “arguments” for years. I don’t see why this can only work one way?
On a more serious note, I am quite tired of the moving of goalposts practiced by cryptocurrency shills. “Oh, no, that only applies to some coins, not all of them!”, “hey, that one also only affects some blockchains!”, “no no, you can’t say that, there’s this <edge case> coin out there that happens to not have this one specific problem”.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
Give me a break. 🙄
Also, nice evasion there, just ignoring the main part of my post, which was: the fact that some other industry happens to generate emissions doesn’t make it okay to create a completely new source of emissions.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
That’s what you were doing though. Cherry-picking faults from many different currencies.
Your original point was that crypto-currencies have no value and are ponzi schemes. Have you been convinced to change your mind about those two things? They are concrete statements, strong arguments. So they are easy to prove/disprove.
I’m afraid the discussion has gotten too broad now. You would need to start a new thread for each point. Otherwise it becomes circular. For example several or your points here I’ve already answered in another part of the thread.
This is hardly a reason to add more to that, is it?
Seriously. 🙄
Plus, the financial sector can process thousands of transactions globally per second. Bitcoin, on the other hand, about (checks notes) seven.
Here you go again, taking a weakness of a single cryptocurrency, and pretending that it applies to all coins. No point arguing with this nonsense.
Look, cryptobros have been pushing cryptocurrencies using cherry-picked “arguments” for years. I don’t see why this can only work one way?
On a more serious note, I am quite tired of the moving of goalposts practiced by cryptocurrency shills. “Oh, no, that only applies to some coins, not all of them!”, “hey, that one also only affects some blockchains!”, “no no, you can’t say that, there’s this <edge case> coin out there that happens to not have this one specific problem”.
Somehow problems they point out with the financial sector are supposed to apply to the whole sector, but problems with cryptocurrencies are only ever relevant to one very specific coin and in no way should reflect on the whole scene.
Give me a break. 🙄
Also, nice evasion there, just ignoring the main part of my post, which was: the fact that some other industry happens to generate emissions doesn’t make it okay to create a completely new source of emissions.
That’s what you were doing though. Cherry-picking faults from many different currencies.
Your original point was that crypto-currencies have no value and are ponzi schemes. Have you been convinced to change your mind about those two things? They are concrete statements, strong arguments. So they are easy to prove/disprove.
I’m afraid the discussion has gotten too broad now. You would need to start a new thread for each point. Otherwise it becomes circular. For example several or your points here I’ve already answered in another part of the thread.