The author doesn't like cryptocurrencies and is articulate in describing why.
The author is free to support and use alternate payment methods.
Others seem to like cryptocurrencies. There are harms in its use, as with many actions. Does the author refuse to use airplanes too?
That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there. This is whataboutism. Let's address one issue at a time, and if you have strong opinions on air travel, write a blog post and let's talk about it. Otherwise, one must be prepared to defend their position about the entire universe of ideas when challenging one - surely you can understand why this is counterproductive, untenable and harmful to the discourse?
Cryptocurrencies provide a useful service that otherwise isn’t available (the ability to quickly transfer value from one place to another without censorship).
> That said I've no idea why pushing back against a regressive technology requires you to have similarly strong opinions about every other potential harm or slight out there.
The censorship resistance offered by cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive. The anonymity offered by some cryptocurrencies is extremely progressive.
Asking "what about X" is useful to ensure we're focusing on useful changes (at the margin), rather than the flavour of the month.
I am no Bitcoin evangelist, it has many issues. But it's censorship resistance is important for an encyclopedia. We've seen in recently weeks discussions by the UK government of "regulating" (i.e. censorship) of websites via blocking and payment removal, with Wikipedia specifically brought up as an example by legislators. This is not a hypothetical risk. MasterCard's BRAM rules frequently cause censorship to sexual topics.
Poor stuff.
But once again, not every cryptocurrency has the same properties as Bitcoin. The author continues to yet again create a sweeping generalization on this. I would only agree with that if Bitcoin was the ONLY cryptocurrency or if PoW was the only system used. It is not.
It’s like making an argument against driving anything with a wheel for environmental reasons, because most vehicles are still running on either petrol or diesel. (And willfully ignoring alternatives like electric cars)
Instead of continuing to generalize all cryptocurrencies as Bitcoin (and PoW), criticize the others that are either PoS, or use their own consensus algorithm and assess them if they are environmentally unfriendly or are unsuitable for payments.
Since clearly the author keeps recycling the same known predictable critiques on Bitcoin which does not apply to all cryptocurrencies.
XMRs randomx pow algorithm is a step in the right direction for sustainability and decentralization.
Inb4 “pow actually has a larger barrier to entry!”
Consider this: at least mining operations have to cover their op expenses by selling their rewards.
With pos, there’s an incentive to put your rewards back into your validator pool further restricting supply for the general public.
Exactly. The authors argument against Bitcoin is recycled and is already widely known. Bitcoin is the easiest to attack and everyone knows it is still unsuitable for payments. Hence this, how does Bitcoin’s unsuitability apply to all cryptocurrencies which that is her argument?
As for the rambling on about the re-centralization of the web3, that is reserved for another another debate since they are talking about using cryptocurrencies for fast and efficient payments and donations. Not web3.
> They did not name alternate cryptocurrencies, but it is implied in the text.
The only one they can name is Bitcoin or any other PoW cryptocurrency.
The author chooses to generalize where it is unsafe to do so as if only PoW cryptocurrencies exist.
Especially if you consider how modern cars are not meant to be driven for 20+ years. My diesel van is over 25 years old and still going smoothly. Can you imagine to drive a current Tesla for the next 25 years? How many cars will you "use up"? Let's compare the environmental damage.
We're cleaning up the grid, which will clean electric car production cars.
Combustion engines have no such path.
