Potentially Controversial Opinion 

I really dislike when people try to use "emissions" as a reason to bash blockchain/hyped things.

Like, it is not the fault of a given technology that the world's energy system is not sustainable. That is the fault of politicians.

Also distributed and heavy computing is everywhere. If you're going to be upset about emissions from something like blockchain, how about be upset by Facebook, Twitter, and Google's heap of data centers and power consumption?

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

Like, okay, NFT. I understand why people don't like NFT and get that people see it as copyright abuse/abolition/obfuscation for small artists. STILL, using Twitter of all things to make your whole argument about "emissions" just comes off as... stupid. You're literally only mad at this thing because being mad at it is the popular thing. You don't have real reasons to dislike NFT, yet you're ready and willing to demonize people who use it.

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@jebug29 its not controversial, its patronizing and dismissive to tell folks their only critical of something because its fashionable.

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@Capheind The controversial opinion was more than emissions aren't the fault of blockchain and other high-energy computing applications but the failure of governments to implement cleaner energy quickly enough. Controversial because a decent counterargument could easily be made, which I get.

Also, not everyone is just jumping on the bandwagon and I'm not wanting to say that. I just can't stand when they are and I see posts like "OMG think of the emissions >:((("

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@jebug29 except its emissions are a wholly valid concern 'now' reguardless of what a future infrastructure might be implemented. Additionally proof of work verified blockchains will always incentivize excessive power use by design.

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@jebug29 Municipalities will likely be further delayed in instituting better infrastructure because of artificially inflated power demands. Something making a bad system worse is still a valid criticizm of that Something, it isn't nullified by the system also requiring attention.

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@Capheind I think that's a totally fair argument, and I can sympathize with it. I think though that if the right infrastructure was in place, blockchain's energy consumption at least for a very long time wouldn't be a pertinent issue. It's sort of like how yes, we should absolutely work toward more efficient vehicles, but every fossil fuel-powered vehicle in the world doesn't compare to a city of factories.

Follow

Potentially Controversial Opinion 

@jebug29 except both the cars and the factories serve some worthwhile functions NFT can potentially consume the energy of a country so some dingus can own (but not actually own) a piece of art. Its burning the energy output of a mid sized US state to record who pretend owns something. Also the inherent nature of mining incentivizes using as much power as possible, if you dramatically increase power output why wouldn't they deploy more gpu?

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon @ SDF

"I appreciate SDF but it's a general-purpose server and the name doesn't make it obvious that it's about art." - Eugen Rochko