Bold of you to assume the interests of the people intersect with the interests of rulers
Mubelotix
joined 2 years ago
Grayjay should have it too
Pour moi "ne pas réagir favorablement" et "réagir défavorablement" c'est très éloigné
Yeah it could be but it's still quite challenging to implement so it takes time
For your information, energy can be sold to the Bitcoin network for 0.05$ per kWh while it can also be sold to consumers/companies for between 0.10 to 0.30$ per kWh depending on the country. Energy producers sell to the highest offer, which is always consumers. Energy that goes into Bitcoin is energy that couldn't be sold to consumers because demand didn't meet offer. Energy cannot be stored in vast amounts so it would have been wasted otherwise. Yes a lot of energy goes into Bitcoin, but it's only because nothing else can be done with it
Long text full of errors. Yes there is a mechanism to prioritize other uses of energy than mining. It's the market. Energy is usually sold between 0.1$ and 0.25$ per kWh while Bitcoin only buys for 0.05$ per kWh. Energy producers WILL sell to the highest offer, which is never Bitcoin unless it's the only option. It is almost always more profitable to just buy Bitcoin than mine it, which is why it's rarely done. Taking that into account, we can discard the rest of your comment
They could but they won't. Bitcoin pays 0.05$ per kWh, that's close to 0, the only energy that goes into mining is energy that wouldn't have gone anywhere else. Energy is hard to store and sometimes there just isn't enough demand. That's what goes into Bitcoin, and there is no ecological problem with that
Can you block me too please?
You think having thousands of bankers use their car twice a day is better? It's so much worse
Yeah it counts water that flows into streams that makes no sense
Find the accelaration