Transformacja cyfrowa
#TheFutureIsYours Kształtowanie cyfrowej przyszłości Europy
Ban cryptocurrencies
Cryptocurrencies may be a neat idea, but environmentally, they are an unsustainable nightmare. It is morally unjustifiable that huge amounts of electricity / resources are wasted on bitcoin farming. So far, cryptocurrencies only serve speculators / gamblers and, occasionally, criminals. They have no benefit to society. In order to reduce the demand - and the environmental harm caused by their production - the European Union should ban the trading and possession of cryptocurrencies.
Zatwierdzony przez
i jeszcze 11 osoby / osób (rozwiń) (ukryj)
i jeszcze 12 osoby / osób (rozwiń) (ukryj)
Odcisk palca
Poniższy fragment tekstu jest skrócony i stanowi jedynie zaszyfrowane przedstawienie treści. Należy upewnić się, czy nie doszło ingerencji w treść, ponieważ jedna modyfikacja skutkuje zupełnie odmienną wartością.
Wartość:
e8fda0c24d6a8b094f16c90ff862a606a00ccc78188318a38c59ef8d7044da44
Źródło:
{"body":{"de":"Cryptocurrencies may be a neat idea, but environmentally, they are an unsustainable nightmare. It is morally unjustifiable that huge amounts of electricity / resources are wasted on bitcoin farming. So far, cryptocurrencies only serve speculators / gamblers and, occasionally, criminals. They have no benefit to society. In order to reduce the demand - and the environmental harm caused by their production - the European Union should ban the trading and possession of cryptocurrencies.","machine_translations":{"bg":"Криптовалутите може да са добра идея, но от екологична гледна точка те са неустойчив кошмар. От морална гледна точка не е оправдано количествата електроенергия/ресурси да се разхищават при отглеждането на биткойни. До момента криптовалутите служат само на спекуланти/играчи и, с право, на престъпници. Те нямат никаква полза за обществото. За да се намали търсенето и вредата за околната среда, причинена от тяхното производство, Европейският съюз следва да забрани търговията и собствеността върху криптовалутите.","cs":"Kryptoměny mohou být jasnou myšlenkou, ale z hlediska životního prostředí, jsou neudržitelnou noční můrou. Je z morálního hlediska neospravedlnitelné, že společnost Huge proplácejí množství elektřiny/zdrojů při výrobě bitcoinů. Kryptoměny dosud slouží pouze spekulantům/pachatelům a oprávněně i pachatelům trestné činnosti. Nemají žádný přínos pro společnost. Aby se snížila poptávka a škody na životním prostředí způsobené jejich produkcí, měla by Evropská unie zakázat obchodování s kryptoměnami a jejich vlastnictví.","da":"Kryptovalutaer kan være en ren idé, men miljømæssigt set er de et uholdbart natmart. Det er moralsk uberettiget, at store mængder elektricitet/ressourcer går til spilde i bitcoinavlen. Hidtil har kryptovalutaer kun betjent spekulanter/spillere og, med rette, kriminelle. De gavner ikke samfundet. For at mindske efterspørgslen — og de miljøskader, der forårsages af deres produktion — bør Den Europæiske Union forbyde handel med og ejerskab af kryptovalutaer.","el":"Τα κρυπτονομίσματα μπορεί να είναι μια καλή ιδέα, αλλά το περιβάλλον, είναι μια μη βιώσιμη νύχτα. Είναι ηθικά αδικαιολόγητο το γεγονός ότι οι ποσότητες ηλεκτρικής ενέργειας/πόρων του Huge σπαταλούνται στη γεωργία bitcoin. Μέχρι στιγμής, τα κρυπτονομίσματα εξυπηρετούν μόνο κερδοσκόπους/παίκτες και, δικαίως, εγκληματίες. Δεν έχουν κανένα όφελος για την κοινωνία. Προκειμένου να μειωθεί η ζήτηση και η περιβαλλοντική ζημία που προκαλείται από την παραγωγή τους, η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση θα πρέπει να απαγορεύσει τις συναλλαγές και την ιδιοκτησία των κρυπτονομισμάτων.","en":"Cryptocurrencies may be a neat idea, but environmentally, they are an unsustainable nightmare. It is morally unjustifiable that Huge amounts of electricity/resources are wasted on bitcoin farming. So far, Cryptocurrencies only serve speculators/gamblers and, rightly, criminals. They have no benefit to society. In order to reduce the demand — and the environmental harm caused by their production — the European Union should ban the trading and ownership of Cryptocurrencies.","es":"Las criptomonedas pueden ser una idea pura, pero desde el punto de vista medioambiental son una pesadilla insostenible. Es moralmente injustificable que las cantidades de electricidad/recursos de Huge se desperdicien en la agricultura de bitcoin. Hasta ahora, las criptomonedas solo sirven a especuladores/jugadores y, con razón, a delincuentes. No tienen ningún beneficio para la sociedad. Con el fin de reducir la demanda y el daño medioambiental causado por su producción, la Unión Europea debe prohibir el comercio y la propiedad de criptomonedas.","et":"Krüptoraha võib olla puhas idee, kuid keskkonna seisukohast on see jätkusuutmatu öönägemus. Moraalselt on põhjendamatu, et suur hulk elektrit/ressursse raisatakse bitcoinikasvatuses. Seni on krüptoraha suunatud ainult spekuleerijatele/mängijatele ja õigustatult kurjategijatele. Neil ei ole ühiskonnale mingit kasu. Nõudluse ja nende tootmisest põhjustatud keskkonnakahju vähendamiseks peaks Euroopa Liit keelustama krüptorahadega kauplemise ja nende omandiõiguse.","fi":"Kryptovaluutat voivat olla pessimistisiä, mutta ympäristön kannalta ne ovat kestämätön yö. On moraalisesti perusteetonta, että humalasähkö/resurssit menee hukkaan bitcoin-viljelyssä. Tähän mennessä kryptovaluutat palvelevat vain keinottelijoiden/pelien harjoittajia ja oikeutetusti rikollisia. Ne eivät hyödytä yhteiskuntaa. Kysynnän ja tuotannon aiheuttamien ympäristöhaittojen vähentämiseksi Euroopan unionin olisi kiellettävä kryptovaluuttojen kaupankäynti ja omistajuus.","fr":"Cryptocurrencies may be a neat idea, but environmentally, they are an Unsustainable nightmare. IT is morally unjustifiable that Huge amounts of electricity/resources are wasted on Bitcoin farming. Far, Cryptocurrencies only serve speculators/gamblers and, occasionally, criminals. Théy have no benefit to society. In order to reduce the demand — and the environmental harm caused by their production — the European Union should ban the trading and possession of Cryptocurrencies.","ga":"D’fhéadfadh a bheith Cryptocurrencies smaoineamh néata, ach comhshaoil, tá siad nightmare neamh-inbhuanaithe. Tá sé gan údar morálta go gcuirtear amú méideanna ollmhóra leictreachais/acmhainní ar fheirmeoireacht biotúine. Go dtí seo, Cryptocurrencies freastal ach amháin speculators/gamblers agus, ceart, coirpigh. Níl aon tairbhe ag baint leo don tsochaí. D’fhonn an t-éileamh – agus an dochar don chomhshaol de bharr a dtáirgeachta a laghdú – ba cheart don Aontas Eorpach toirmeasc a chur ar thrádáil agus úinéireacht Criptea-airgeadraí.","hr":"Kriptovalute mogu biti jasna ideja, ali su u pogledu okoliša neodržive noćne note. Moralno je neopravdano bacati Huge količine električne energije/resursa u poljoprivredi bitcoina. Zasad kriptovalute služe samo špekulatorima/organizatorima i, s pravom, kriminalcima. Oni nemaju koristi za društvo. Kako bi se smanjila potražnja i šteta za okoliš prouzročena njihovom proizvodnjom, Europska unija trebala bi zabraniti trgovanje kriptovalutama i vlasništvo nad njima.","hu":"A kriptovaluták rengeteg ötletet jelenthetnek, de környezetvédelmi szempontból fenntarthatatlan éjszakát jelentenek. Morálisan indokolatlan, hogy a villamos energia/erőforrások Huge-mennyiségét a bitcoin-gazdálkodás során pazarolják. A kriptovaluták eddig csak spekulánsokat/játékosokat, és jogosan bűnözőket szolgálnak ki. Nem járnak a társadalom hasznával. A kereslet – és a termelésük által okozott környezeti károk – csökkentése érdekében az Európai Uniónak be kell tiltania a kriptovaluták kereskedelmét és tulajdonjogát.","it":"Le criptovalute possono essere un'idea nevralgica, ma dal punto di vista ambientale sono un incubo insostenibile. È moralmente ingiustificabile che le quantità di elettricità/risorse di Huge vengano sprecate nell'agricoltura di bitcoin. Finora le criptovalute servono solo speculatori/giocatori e, giustamente, criminali. Non hanno alcun vantaggio per la società. Al fine di ridurre la domanda e i danni ambientali causati dalla loro produzione, l'Unione europea dovrebbe vietare lo scambio e la proprietà di criptovalute.","lt":"Kriptovaliutos gali būti gera idėja, tačiau aplinkos požiūriu jos yra netvarus košmaras. Morališkai nepateisinama, kad „Huge“ elektros ir (arba) išteklių kiekiai iššvaistomi bitkoinų ūkiuose. Iki šiol kriptovaliutos tarnauja tik spekuliantams ir (arba) lošėjams ir, teisingai, nusikaltėliams. Jie neturi jokios naudos visuomenei. Siekdama sumažinti paklausą ir jų gamybos daromą žalą aplinkai, Europos Sąjunga turėtų uždrausti prekybą kriptovaliutomis ir jų nuosavybę.","lv":"Kriptovalūtas var būt skaidra ideja, bet vides jomā tās ir neilgtspējīgs murgs. Nav morāli pamatoti, ka Huge elektroenerģijas/resursu apjomi tiek izšķērdēti bitkoinu lauksaimniecībā. Līdz šim kriptovalūtas kalpo tikai spekulantiem/spēlētājiem un, pareizi, noziedzniekiem. Tie nenes labumu sabiedrībai. Lai samazinātu pieprasījumu un kaitējumu videi, ko rada to ražošana, Eiropas Savienībai būtu jāaizliedz kriptovalūtu tirdzniecība un īpašumtiesības uz tām.","mt":"Il-kriptovaluti jistgħu jkunu idea neat, iżda ambjentali, huma nightmare insostenibbli. Huwa moralment inġustifikabbli li l-ammonti Huge ta’ elettriku/riżorsi jinħlew fil-biedja tal-bitcoin. S’issa, il-kriptovaluti jaqdu biss l-ispekulaturi/il-lagħaba u, ġustament, il-kriminali. Dawn ma għandhom l-ebda benefiċċju għas-soċjetà. Sabiex titnaqqas id-domanda — u l-ħsara ambjentali kkawżata mill-produzzjoni tagħhom — l-Unjoni Ewropea għandha tipprojbixxi l-kummerċ u s-sjieda tal-muniti kriptografiċi.","nl":"Cryptovaluta kunnen een neat idee zijn, maar vanuit milieuoogpunt zijn zij een onhoudbare nachtmerrie. Het is moreel niet te rechtvaardigen dat grote hoeveelheden elektriciteit/hulpbronnen worden verspild aan bitcoinelandbouw. Tot dusver dienen Cryptocurrenons alleen voor speculanten/spelers en, terecht, criminelen. Zij hebben geen voordelen voor de samenleving. Om de vraag en de door hun productie veroorzaakte milieuschade te verminderen, moet de Europese Unie de handel in en eigendom van cryptovaluta verbieden.","pl":"Kryptowaluty mogą być idealnym pomysłem, ale z punktu widzenia ochrony środowiska są one niezrównoważonym koszmarem. Moralnie nieuzasadnione jest, że ilość energii elektrycznej/zasobów Huge jest marnotrawiona w rolnictwie bitcoin. Do tej pory kryptowaluty służą jedynie spekulatorom/agblatorom i, słusznie, przestępcom. Nie przynoszą one korzyści społeczeństwu. Aby ograniczyć popyt i szkody dla środowiska powodowane przez ich produkcję, Unia Europejska powinna zakazać handlu kryptowalutami i ich własności.","pt":"As criptomoedas podem ser uma ideia nua, mas, do ponto de vista ambiental, são um pesadelo insustentável. É moralmente injustificável que as quantidades de eletricidade/recursos da Huge sejam desperdiçadas na agricultura de bitcoin. Até à data, as criptomoedas servem apenas especuladores/jogadores e, corretamente, criminosos. Não trazem benefícios para a sociedade. A fim de reduzir a procura — e os danos ambientais causados pela sua produção — a União Europeia deve proibir a negociação e a propriedade de criptomoedas.","ro":"Criptomonedele pot fi o idee curată, dar din punctul de vedere al mediului sunt o coșmar nesustenabilă. Din punct de vedere moral, nu se justifică risipa de electricitate/resurse Huge în sectorul cultivării bitcoinului. Până în prezent, Cryptocurrencies deservesc doar speculanții/jucătorii și, pe bună dreptate, infractorii. Acestea nu aduc beneficii societății. Pentru a reduce cererea — și daunele aduse mediului de producția acestora — Uniunea Europeană ar trebui să interzică tranzacționarea și deținerea de criptomonede.","sk":"Kryptomeny môžu byť neprirodzenou myšlienkou, ale z environmentálneho hľadiska sú neudržateľnou nočnou morou. Je morálne neopodstatnené, aby sa pri chove bitcoinov plytvalo množstvom elektrickej energie/zdrojov. Kryptomeny zatiaľ slúžia len špekulantom/gamblérom a, oprávnene, zločincom. Nemajú žiadny prínos pre spoločnosť. S cieľom znížiť dopyt a environmentálne škody spôsobené ich výrobou by Európska únia mala zakázať obchodovanie s kryptomenami a ich vlastníctvo.","sl":"Kriptovalute so lahko nesmiselna ideja, vendar so z okoljskega vidika netrajnostna nočna morska. Moralno ni upravičeno, da se količine električne energije/virov Huge zapravljajo pri kmetovanju bitcoina. Do zdaj kriptovalute služijo le špekulatorjem/igralcem in, upravičeno, storilcem kaznivih dejanj. Ne koristijo družbi. Da bi Evropska unija zmanjšala povpraševanje in okoljsko škodo, ki jo povzroča njihova proizvodnja, bi morala prepovedati trgovanje s kriptovalutami in lastništvo nad njimi.","sv":"Kryptovalutor kan vara en nyanserad idé, men ur miljösynpunkt är de en ohållbar mardrömma. Det är moraliskt oförsvarligt att Huges mängd el/resurser slösas bort från bitcoinodling. Hittills har kryptovalutor endast tjänat spekulanter/spelare och, med rätta, brottslingar. De har ingen nytta för samhället. För att minska efterfrågan – och de miljöskador som orsakas av produktionen – bör Europeiska unionen förbjuda handel med och ägande av kryptovalutor."}},"title":{"de":"Ban cryptocurrencies","machine_translations":{"bg":"Забрана на криптовалутите","cs":"Zakázat kryptoměny","da":"Forbud mod kryptovalutaer","el":"Απαγόρευση των κρυπτονομισμάτων","en":"Ban Cryptocurrencies","es":"Prohibición de criptomonedas","et":"Keelustada krüpteeritud vääringud","fi":"Kryptovaluuttojen kieltäminen","fr":"Ban Cryptocurrencies","ga":"Cosc a chur ar chriptea-airgeadraí","hr":"Zabrana kriptovaluta","hu":"Ban Cryptocurrencies","it":"Vietare le criptovalute","lt":"Uždrausti kriptovaliutas","lv":"Aizliegt kriptovalūtas","mt":"Projbizzjoni tal-Kriptovaluti","nl":"Verbod op cryptovaluta","pl":"Zakaz kryptowalut","pt":"Proibir criptomoedas","ro":"Interzicerea criptomonedelor","sk":"Zákaz kryptomeny","sl":"Prepoved kriptovalut","sv":"Förbud mot kryptovalutor"}}}
Ten odcisk palca jest liczony przy pomocy algorytmu mieszającego SHA256. Aby samodzielnie go zreplikować, można skorzystać z Internetowy kalkulator MD5 i skopiować oraz wkleić dane źródłowe.
Udostępnij:
Link udostępniania:
Prosimy o wklejenie tego kodu na swoją stronę:
<script src="https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/Digital/f/15/proposals/821/embed.js?locale=pl"></script>
<noscript><iframe src="https://futureu.europa.eu/processes/Digital/f/15/proposals/821/embed.html?locale=pl" frameborder="0" scrolling="vertical"></iframe></noscript>
Zgłoś niestosowną treść
Czy ta treść jest niestosowna?
- Zadzwoń do nas pod numer 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
- Skorzystaj z innych form kontaktu telefonicznego
- Napisz do nas, korzystając z formularza
- Spotkaj się z nami w lokalnym biurze UE
- Parlament Europejski
- Rada Europejska
- Rada Unii Europejskiej
- Komisja Europejska
- Trybunał Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej
- Europejski Bank Centralny (EBC)
- Europejski Trybunał Obrachunkowy
- Europejska Służba Działań Zewnętrznych (ESDZ)
- Europejski Komitet Ekonomiczno-Społeczny (EKES)
- Europejski Komitet Regionów (KR)
- Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny (EBI)
- Europejski Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich
- Europejski Inspektor Ochrony Danych (EIOD)
- Europejska Rada Ochrony Danych
- Europejski Urząd Doboru Kadr
- Urząd Publikacji Unii Europejskiej
- Agencje
Proszę się zalogować
Możesz uzyskać dostęp do platformy z konta zewnętrznego
Liczba komentarzy: 51
I agree. I would add that there is now way for for the justice to trace a transaction, where a bank have to notes everything. Hence, it is so easy to avoid taxes, or to perform illegal and monopolistic transactions. We have to stop that before Monsanto goes legal in selling medics world wide.
Konwersacje
Bitcoin mining is indeed an unsustainable nightmare and should be regulated. However, not all cryptocurrencies are created equal and some of the more recent technologies can be expected to have real world use cases in the future. This includes the possibility of being even more energy-efficient that modern banking systems.
1) We can not check a blockchain transaction to determine if it was legal, as we can do with regular bank transactions; what would you do when Monsanto will go legal by selling poison and medics using blockchain. The only use of the blockchain is anonymity which is by essence incompatible with our laws, as we can not make law of something we can not investigate on.
2) Once again, blockchain only bring pollution where a centralised server led by an independent organisation could be federated using protocols like Activity Pub to do the same in a much greener way. A server federalisation approach is compatible with our laws and our environment. The blockchain is incompatible with our laws, cf. 1), but also with our environmental objectives, as in order to get the anonymity, which we don't want, we would waste tons on card in bitcoin mining, cards that pollute a lot as miners have to throw them often to stay productive, and these cards are unusable after then. Plus a waste of PetaWatts.
Konwersacje
You imply that crypto's only have a use in criminal and speculative fashion. This is ignoring the fact the worth of a currency is mainly based on the demand (including trust). As history shows there are lot's of reasons to not fully trust in a currency that can be controlled by a small number of persons e.g. they could make a hyper-inflation possible and thus their benefit for society is enormous as everyone can simply buy the currency they most trust and are not forced to use a specific one.
These are not currencies: they are the definition of speculative bubbles. There is absolutely no way that there is a good end for cryptocurrencies that is not "they become currencies" in which case we already have those and can just use them right now.
Konwersacje
If you think that cryptocurrencies have no benefit, at all, to society you are under-informed.
This article explains a difference between proof of work (horrible for the environment) and proof of stake (better)
https://medium.com/luniehq/why-is-proof-of-stake-better-for-the-environment-8ac074721930
Secondly, the cryptocurrency Theta & associated tfuel, organise more efficient wayof data transfer.
This can currently already decrease the energy-impact video streaming has, and google will likely be rolling it or a similar system out somewhere in the coming years, as they are collaborating with them. see:
https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data-analytics/how-theta-labs-reached-the-outer-limits-of-video-streaming
We are not under-informed, you are formatted.
Please, explains to us how blockchain is any better than a central server led by an independent organisation, which can be decentralised to other central servers (using protocols like ActivityPub). It cost TerraWatts of emergency to bring an anonymity guarantees that serves only Mafias. Thats the truth about it, all the rest is a lie.
You have to TRUST this organisation. This IS the problem. Look at Venezuela, look at Germany @1923. Also our Money (the euro) has a inflation of 2% per year. This is a good thing to make everyone to actually spend their money, however there a scenarios you'd like to want a currency that is actually deflating.
If we can't trust an organisation then why are your trusting your government and why are you not living in wild ? Trust is the key of our civilisation.
And: if you don't want to trust an organisation, then you will have to trust all our citizens to check that they follow the laws of the market; but as with a blockchain there is no way to investigate on a transaction, then our laws would become useless. So its a like choosing between trusting few people and keep our laws, or trusting everyone and delete market laws as we would no longer be able to collect proofs on it. If we can not trust our banks, then we can not make laws about transactions and we have to trust 7 billions people.
And, blockchains does not solve the issue about how much trust we are all giving to the very few 2/3 big tech manufacturers, their signing servers etc. You will always have to trust someone at the end.
You can investigate every single transaction made with cryptocurrency, see https://bitquery.io/blog/trace-bitcoin-transaction-and-address for example. The problem is not the goverment regulating and taxing money (whitch includes cryptocurrencys) but people who don't obay rules. And with an bank-acount you have to trust companys who are, based on all the fraud cases that became public, not fully trustworthy. The current bank-system also could never be fully trustwothy as long your money is just seen as a possible profit maximization.
Its all about pseudonyme, nothing such as ID card that would preserve our laws of market.
See /processes/Digital/f/15/proposals/821?commentId=1602#comment_1602 for a full answer.
I'm not sure why you bring up mafias when I literally link a blog from google (its not even the paypal mafia).
Regardless, Like I mentioned implicitly proof of work is incredi-bad.
Also, I'm not making the case that something is better than something else.
I, like many others, did not even know about the existence of Activitypub (and possibly smimilar others), and for networks to function they need to have adoption, making things about money kinda helps with that.
Also, although things like tornado.cash & monero exist that focus on making things private, other chains (almost all) have transaction history as a builtin feature of the network, which means that if passport/ID is even once linked to an address (through onramp at an exchange for example) the flow of money can be followed almost indefinitly and if anonymity of transaction afterwards is the issue it would suffice to ban privacycoins, but not crypto as a whole, so I'm not sure what the problem is?
Thank you for those links. They make for interesting reading. However, it is still not clear to me how cryptocurrencies are beneficial. The second article mentions blockchain - as I understand it, blockchain is a technology, which cryptocurrencies popularised, but which does not have to be linked to a currency, and I did not suggest that blockchain should be banned. As for the Medium article - while it is a good thing if something becomes less wasteful, I still do not see how cryptocurrencies are anything other than a toy for investors / gamblers - at least here. I am sure there are some people who would like to be able to make transactions that cannot easily be traced to them, and regimes where one might have good reasons to avoid government oversight. However, I do not believe that there are legitimate reasons to hide financial transactions in Europe. What exactly is the benefit of cryptocurrencies within Europe?
I think it is indeed a good thing to make a difference between blockchain and cryptocurrencies, I assumed cryptocurrencies were meant as a catch-all rather than a catch-some, so my response was a misunderstanding of what you might've meant.
One of the nice things is making programming with money related things much easier to develop, as the code of banks is, as far as I am aware, not open source or easily extendable otherwise, creating (inter-)national crypto with built-in tax would be a reasonable solution in my opinion.
Especially in europe transactions are cheap via e.g. paypal or ideal ideal, but for other places the cost of transactions in both monetary cost as well as time is what makes it beneficial. I think that at least currently there is little reason within legal framework to hide transactions via e.g. privacycoins and can understand concerns regarding those.
sorry for late response, I my "response quota exceeded" :l
Konwersacje
Forme CIA Vice Michael Morell said once Bitcoin is a "Blessings for the surveillance". Just because something is new and from many not well understood it is not for criminal use.
However, we could counterbalance the bad co/2 footstep deliberately by using surplus of renewable energy-sources (which can otherwise not consumed or stored) for mining in europe.
Look at Monero for example. It's about as anonymous as a online currency can get. Bitcoin (including it's forks) isn't the only crypto...
Indeed, but: As long as a cryptocurrencys are open and shared it will never be completely anonymous - See "CipherTrace" as example for Monero.
Konwersacje
The regular FUD. Cryptocurrencies and digital assets consume a lot of energy, true. But it is a consumer of last resort as it will run and use the energy 24/7/365 and is agnostic to where in the world it is used, so energy which would otherwise have been wasted is now used productively.
If you question how productive it is, you might ask yourself how much energy does the worlds financial sector use, including gold mining, gold minting, servers for all financial institutions, central banks, payment networks, etc. ad infinitum.
Cryptocurrencies is vertically integrated in that they do all of the above things. So I would argue that it is much more environmentally friendly than the alternative.
https://medium.com/@nic__carter/on-bitcoin-the-gray-lady-embraces-climate-lysenkoism-a2d31e465ec0
1) We can not check a blockchain transaction to determine if it was legal, as we can do with regular bank transactions; what would you do when Monsanto will go legal by selling poison and medics using blockchain. The only use of the blockchain is anonymity which is by essence incompatible with our laws, as we can not make law of something we can not investigate on.
2) Once again, blockchain only bring pollution where a centralised server led by an independent organisation could be federated using protocols like Activity Pub to do the same in a much greener way. A server federalisation approach is compatible with our laws and our environment. The blockchain is incompatible with our laws, cf. 1), but also with our environmental objectives, as in order to get the anonymity, which we don't want, we would waste tons on card in bitcoin mining, cards that pollute a lot as miners have to throw them often to stay productive, and these cards are unusable after then. Plus a waste of PetaWatts.
for 1: You can check Bank Transactions with Cryptorurrencys, everybody can. And there are so many illegal bank transactions with fraudulent or illegal background with no intervention by any law enforcements. Also… most illegal money transactions are still done with hard cash.
for 2: The energy consumption of one bank organisation is estimated for 100TWh per Year - ONLY for the data centers, so the energy consumption of the bank's branch offices, computers, ATMs (…) are not included. The estimated energy consumption of Bitcoin is 30TWh. Let's crunch some numbers then: EU-28 has 5981 individual bank organisations vs. 5000 active Cryptocurrencys.
5.981.000 TWh Energy-Consumption on EU-Banks only
vs.
150.000 TWh on Worldwide-Cryptocurrencys
I guess "Ban Banks" would be the greener approach.
Futher… why should cryptocurreny be incopatible with our law? Because it is liberal-minded? It's still the people who decide to obay or disobay the law.
Your calculs are totally wrong because: lets say I want to perform the instruction 1 + 1, aka ONE PLUS ONE is a datacenter, my instruction would be done very few time in the same area to ensure its validity.
Now, lets to the same instruction using the blockchain, we would need to perform this simple instruction world wide 20 or maybe 100 times to check its validity, and then theses world wide machines have to use much more routing power thats logical, DONT BE STUPID. And you are forgetting the fact that banks are not only performing automated instructions, but also all the human related stuffs such as legals checks and money borrows and investments. We would still need that.
You should not share fake calculus like that that have the only goal to influence others if they are stupidly wrong. Blockchain is way way and way more polluting than a central server thats all. And blockchain costs so many cards to be thrown with no way to recycle them while we can with a datacenter. Thats the truth about it, don't share fake calculus that are scientifically wrong. You have been formatted and you should be more aware of what you are reading.
There is simply no point of wasting miners cards and TerraWatts in encryption/decryption to bring anonymous transactions if we don't want em because of the law. We are the EU not the US thats as simple as that and lets make this clearer by banning Bitcoin and its forks once for good.
I have sources backing my statements abot the energy consumption. And - influence others to give them an extensive view of the topic is is your goal as well as mine.
You can read about the power consumptions here:
https://theconversation.com/stop-worrying-about-how-much-energy-bitcoin-uses-97591
About eWaste, changing all hdd's every year is absolutely normal in datacenters. Changing whole Servers every two years aswell. It is sick, but changing out everything so early is cheaper for companys then keep them running until they actually break. Many, especially financial companies, also destroye the hardware, 'too big of a risk' to loose valuable data to competitors or hackers.
Miners don't destroy the hardware, they sell them. Mining-Farms are also as-bare-as-possible. And ... To make a real difference on CO/2 on Cryptocurrency we should actually promote mining with green energy in the EU, not ban it completely.
Konwersacje
An important point to make here, is that as computing power increases as it has done so in the past, so too, will the amount of energy needed to compute each transaction, be reduced; also there are advancements in cryptocurrencies, such as second layers, like the lightening network, in bitcoin, that reduce the energy usage significantly and also proof of stake cryptocurrencies, such as Cardano.
Another point is that many cryptocurrencies have very low transaction fees, and the transaction is instant, which is why some banks and businesses already use cryptocurrencies for cross border transactions and why many payment firms such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal and Square, work with cryptocurrencies.
1) We can not check a blockchain transaction to determine if it was legal, as we can do with regular bank transactions; what would you do when Monsanto will go legal by selling poison and medics using blockchain. The only use of the blockchain is anonymity which is by essence incompatible with our laws, as we can not make law of something we can not investigate on.
2) Once again, blockchain only bring pollution where a centralised server led by an independent organisation could be federated using protocols like Activity Pub to do the same in a much greener way. A server federalisation approach is compatible with our laws and our environment. The blockchain is incompatible with our laws, cf. 1), but also with our environmental objectives, as in order to get the anonymity, which we don't want, we would waste tons on card in bitcoin mining, cards that pollute a lot as miners have to throw them often to stay productive, and these cards are unusable after then. Plus a waste of PetaWatts.
1) The same can be said about a cash transaction between two people in the real world. But the fact remains that when the cash or cryptocurrency makes it way back into regulated bank, it will come under scrutiny, so there is very little difference from a regulatory perspective between cash and cryptocurrencies.
2) There are many relatively centralised cryptocurrencies, that use very little energy, but a less centralised network is less vulnerable to networking issues, that would affect payments being verified.
1) We have cops that protect our borderlands to protect us from illegal cash transactions. We will never have that in the cyber world. I can't see any benefit for our society to allow a speculative bubble that is not compatible with our values. Maybe that some will use bitcoin in a legal way, but how many will not ? Its just like drugs and weapons, we forbid them because they are dangerous and they bring nothing to the citizen. Really, there is simply no bright point for the blockchains, no matter what is the use case as it don't even secure the client devices in a democratic application, then its just a speculative bubble that only services mafias.
2) We don't want a blockchain because we want to trace our transactions. The alternative you are taking about is what I meant with federation protocols. We need a traceable digital euro, we don't need nor want blockchain.
1) I had the same views as you for many years and nothing would change my mind until I learned about the many benefits these cryptocurrencies offer, but your point is valid, no one wants anything to do with illegal activity and so there are ways to use cryptocurrencies legally and they are of great benefit to the users; from instant international transactions, elimination of the 3 percent card issuers charge on transactions for businesses and charities, no delay on verifying payments, so you can use the money received within seconds not days.
2) I do hope we have a European Central bank backed Digital Euro, soon and that it will be environmentally friendly and open to all, and really empower people to take part in the digital economy, and issues like on a block chain or not are irrelevant as the benefits will be seen in productivity, and near zero transaction costs.
I do share your opinions, thats why we need a traceable digital euro. An euro that we can store virtually, but an euro that would not rely on blockchain as there is no point of doing so because we dont want anonymity. Lets ban Bitcoins and its forks once our Digital Euro will be ready, because of all the reasons we are taking about.
And we should not minimise environmental impact of blockchain and the waste or cards as there so few studies about IT cards sustainable development.
If you want an Digital Euro it will be an Blockchain (Cryptocurrency), because it's the only way to make a relieable, tamper-proof and traceable currency. That is the beauty of Blockchains.
Konwersacje
same as for proposal 844
my comment:
all this alternations of Bitcoin are copies of the one Ponzi scheme - you pay for "fiat" as these e-coins are backed only by faith of e-believers willing to own it. It will eventually end badly and leave many people miserable, poorer and a huge (paid) bill of consumed energy and HW... no point to discuss with those of faith in "fiat".
The only questions is, when the e-believers will find out, that e-coins can be easily blocked/erased/stolen and there is NO safe net/guarantee system to save them - a little bit of legislation, little bit of OS updates etc.
I think in Turkey they already are learning on their own cost.
Banning cryptocurrencies will make angry very few people, albeit quite vocal. We can let the few e-faithful citizens of EU to learn on their own and cause as side effect havoc in monetary system and economy thus impacting all, or make a swift move to avoid this in time.
I vote for banning cryptocurrencies prior it is too late.
Isn't every currency this scheme?
I trust it, that you get value out of it when you give it to someone else... because he trusts that he will get something else out of it.
It's the same way for cryptocurrencies.
When you go to a shop outside of Europe and want to buy something, you can't pay with euro, because for the shop owner it does not make any sense, he would not be able to buy something from those euros at other shops. If however everyone there accepts euro, then he too can accept it, because he knows, that he can get something out of it at the other shops.
And as we all know, paper money or even debit money, can also easily stolen.
Hi Yannick, there is a lot of confusion as many currently used money is actually fiat. That means, the money is not directly backed by asset of independent value. However, creating/using a new e-coin/cryptocurrencies is not a solution, as these are also fiat in nature (not directly backed by asset, if you do not count faith as asset).
The situation is not the same for each cryptocurrency, but giving the recent trends, the biggest "fish" is Bitcoin, which is anything but not efficient, eco friendly nor safe (money laundering, lost of value per a tweet etc.) Cryptocurrencies are providing a false sense of anonymity - the "coin" or it's part have to be recorded in the system as existing and who did "mine it", first purchased or who is the current holder. There is a false understanding, that nobody really knows, who owns Bitcoin unless publicly stated by owner.
#2:
if we would be having a money covered by real assets, e.g. gold, the difference between cryptos and the given backed currency would be easier to stop. You could turn in the money and get physical delivery.
We might agree to disagree, but time will tell for sure ;-)
Konwersacje
By being a hedge against risky political decisions, thereby defend people against powers that are outside of their control, cryptocurrencies have a much higher usefulness to society than sportcars do, while not being as environmentally destructive. The same can probably be said for a number of other things, such as villas or luxury travel. Yet we don't prohibit people from spending their money on these things as well as any other consumer luxury expenditures.
I agree. Cryptocurrencies have their use for people living in totalitarian countries, since it might allow one to escape the country taking some of her/his wealth out of the country. But generally:
- how do you want to ban cryptocurrencies?
- Since Ethereum is now using proof of stake and staking is now bearing interest rate, I believe we could now face hard times for FIAT in coming times, expecially of public deficits are running out of control!!!
- In my opinion the only solution is creating central bank emoney backed by a trustfull public institution. Trustfull obviously meaning AAA creditworthyness
Agreed that Bitcoin POW energy usage is terrible, but banning crypto is not the way to go. That would reduce innovation and at some point some crypto projects will find the right strategy to have an efficient and environmentally-friendly currency. The current banking sytem is far from being efficient anyway so any improvements in this sector are welcome...
Hi,
I don't know if ban is a good approach, however running millions of GPU computing next hash, probably hashing the same things, seems out of all proportion. But what do to ? increaseing the price of GPU ? ask to https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin/who-accepts/ to not accept them ? tax transaction in bitcoin ?
This may find an end whether the mining price will overtakes the bitcoin price.
Best Regards,
Konwersacje
Banning innovations may not be the best way to promote digitalization. Talibans ban everything.
In the old times, cash was king when you wanted to pay anonymously for sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. The Times They Are A-Changin’.
Digital assets and blockchains do not need chains and shackles. Light rules and regulations suffice.
Taliban is different topic completely. Unless you are from the region, you hardly are the right person to mention it.
Currently we have in each country digital version of paper money. Less regulation caused Lehman Bros and financial crisis. I think, better understanding of the rules is more helpful than smoothly refusing them.
Otherwise the young, unexperienced and naïve will just repeat the mistake of the previous generations at cost of all involved.
On other hand, if you are so sure, this is the right way, check some real life experience about volatility of the market of ecoins and thus how many people loss their money during this "gamble".
If cryptos will be come an full accepted currency, how you will live with it, when one day you can buy a 1room flat for 1 crypto in many countries but 6 hours later it can be a 3room flat or on other side maybe a used car.
Banning the cryptos is not ban on the blockchain...
Tali-ban is an appropriate name. They ban everything. Nomen est omen. Incidentally, I spent 20 years in the region.
Banning is an extremist’s way of regulation. Fortunately, the EU has a more modern and less restrictive approach:
“The European Commission published a digital finance strategy in September 2020. This included a draft regulation on Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA), which aimed to provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for digital assets in the EU.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency
But even this forum shows that there are people who would like to ban what they do not understand. The same people think that it is a good idea to tax other people (for example, corporate taxation is good because they do not own any company, and will never set up one).
As for volatility, I have been investing in all kinds of real and financial assets for 37 years, including ETFs on blockchain technology and bitcoin. Diversification is the first lesson you learn on the job.
if something, it is "Ṭālibān" - so hard to believe, you know it well enough.. it appear you just play with the English translation and try to highlight the "ban" part of name.
Banned are many other harmful things - like drugs e.g. opioids, killing other people, stealing from other people. It has nothing to do with "extremist's way of regulation." It is a way how to block naive people to become victims.
Diversification is to limit risks. But if you have indeed 37 years of experience with success, you would be pretty rich by now... and definitely know better investment options than cryptos with their volatility. Plus a surplus shown on a screen is not equal to realized profit - that occurs, only when the asset is sold to next buyer. Anyway, average person "investing" in cryptos is not aware of the technical part of this market and is facing higher risk of loosing money even before the fraud is to be revealed.
Time will tell, if this is indeed a "Ponzi scheme" type of fraud or not.
It is true that I generalized the word Taliban to name people who like banning things.
"The word Taliban is Pashto, طالبان (ṭālibān), meaning 'students'… This is a loanword from Arabic طالب (ṭālib), using the Pashto plural ending -ān ان… Since becoming a loanword in English, Taliban...
The Taliban's ideology has been described as combining an 'innovative' form of Sharia Islamic law based on Deobandi fundamentalism and militant Islamist, combined with Pashtun social and cultural norms known as Pashtunwali as most Taliban are Pashtun tribesmen. The group is internally funded by its activities in the illegal drug trade by producing and trafficking narcotics…
While the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they banned activities and media including paintings, photography, and movies... They also prohibited music using instruments… The Taliban prevented girls and young women from attending school, banned women from working jobs outside of healthcare..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
“Ban cryptocurrencies” is the title of the idea.
The author also thinks that cryptocurrencies (all!) are harmful. His thinking reflects his thoughts. But his thoughts do not necessarily reflect the reality.
Banning something can be as extreme as legalizing it. El Salvador has legalized bitcoins as a legal tender, while other countries can be described as permissive, contentious, or hostile.
Nobody is forced to use bitcoins or other cryptocurrencies. If you want to buy them, caveat emptor. Moreover, investing in financial or digital assets, requires you to open a brokerage account (etc.), with a number of checks to verify your identity, knowledge and understanding, plus compliance with other rules.
Financial regulation is an extremely difficult and technical area. It is strange that “experts” propose here simplistic solutions to matters that call for a complex and sophisticated regulatory framework.
Zatiaľ čo súhlasím s premisou, že historicky bolo (a stále je) veľa energie vyplytvanej na neefektívne transakcie niektorých kryptomien, rozhodne nesúhlasím s návrhom ako to vyriešiť. Je to podobné ako by pred 100 rokmi aktivista vravel, že keďže využívanie koní na dopravu po cestách je nemorálne, mali by zakázať cesty (alebo kone).
Kryptomeny (hlavne vo svojich začiatkoch) šialene plytvali energiou. Medzi časom však nastal pokrok a (niektoré) moderné kryptomeny spotrebúvajú výrazne menej energie (napr. Nano údajne na 1 transakciu spotrebuje 6 000 000 krát menej energie ako Bitcoin). A aj samotný Bitcoin teraz prechádza na novú verziu s "Lighting network", od ktorej sa očakáva výrazný pokles spotreby energie.
Verím, že cestou do budúcnosti je optimalizácia, nie zákaz.
Na základe skúseností si myslím, že väčšina podvodov so zoznamovaním začína celkom nevinne. Podvodníci kontaktujú obete prostredníctvom stránok sociálnych médií alebo prostredníctvom e-mailu, pričom sa dožadujú spoločných záujmov alebo vzdialeného vzájomného spojenia – ako je predstavenie na svadbe alebo inom veľkom stretnutí. Iní podvodníci robia svoje falošné profily čo najpríťažlivejšie a čakajú na obete, aby sa natiahli a začali konverzáciu. Akonáhle vás podvodník chytí, možnosti sú neobmedzené. Minulý mesiac som prišiel o takmer 165 000 dolárov kvôli podvodníkovi cez facebook po tom, čo mi sľúbil, že so mnou strávi zvyšok života. Ďakujem za lallroyal .org, ktorý mi pomohol získať stratené peniaze. Ak ste stratili nejaké peniaze online v prospech akéhokoľvek podvodníka, obráťte sa na spoločnosť lallroyal, ktorá vám pomôže získať ich späť. Sú to vymáhacie firmy, ktoré pomáhajú podvodným obetiam.
We are not able as individuals to check each of more than 12,000 existing cryptocurrencies, whether these itself are fraudulent or not. But we can check on the steps before cryptocurrencies and their loaned/leveraged positions.
Let's have a look on e.g. Tether, driving a lot of trading volume. Just read this blog, quite disturbing reading mainly for those using "offshore" (from US perspective) exchanges - thus related to all in Europe buying crypto:
https://crypto-anonymous-2021.medium.com/the-bit-short-inside-cryptos-doomsday-machine-f8dcf78a64d3
The attempts to "debunk" the content of the blog above are usually starting at "Of course tether is not outwardly "Compliant and transparent," that is the point of tether."
Should we let the people participate in non transparent and non-compliant market?
Henkilö, joka haluaa pettää sinua rakastumisen verukkeella, on varmasti tehnyt läksynsä, valmistellut uskottavan tarinan ja luonut kannen, jota voidaan jossain määrin suojata. Näin ollen yksinkertaiset, suorat kysymykset eivät anna tarvittavia oivalluksia vahvistamaan epäilyjä mahdollisen poikamiehen aikomuksista. Pinnan alta kaivaminen ja kysymysten esittäminen, jotka saattavat saada toisella puolella olevan henkilön kiemurtelemaan, on ainoa tapa tunnistaa romanssihuijari. Nämä ovat turvallisuus- ja takaisinperintätoimistoja, joihin voit luottaa tutkiessaan perusteellisesti tai periäkseen takaisin menetetyt varat, olipa kyseessä verkkoromanttinen huijaus tai valuuttahuijaus, tietenkin JOLLYINVESTIGATORS (.com) -sivustolta. He ovat turva-/palautustiimi, joka on erikoistunut rahankeräykseen, digitaalisesta valuutasta, bitcoinista, forexistä, summa-/romantiikkahuijauksesta.
Osoba, ktorá vás chce oklamať pod zámienkou, že sa do vás zamiluje, si určite urobila domácu úlohu, pripravila hodnoverný príbeh a vytvorila do istej miery chránenú obálku. Jednoduché, priame otázky teda neposkytnú poznatky potrebné na potvrdenie podozrení o zámeroch potenciálneho bakalára. Hľadanie pod povrch a kladenie otázok, ktoré by mohli osobu na druhej strane prinútiť, je jediný spôsob, ako identifikovať romantického podvodníka. Toto sú bezpečnostné a vymáhacie agentúry, na ktoré sa môžete spoľahnúť pri dôkladnom vyšetrovaní alebo vymáhaní vašich stratených prostriedkov, či už ide o online romantické podvody alebo menové podvody, samozrejme od WWW.JOLLYINVESTIGATORS.COM. Je to tím obnovy, ktorý sa špecializuje na obnovu stratených peňazí, z digitálnej meny, bitcoinu, forexu, podvodu so sumou / romantikou.
The authors claim to ban cryptocurrency based on “them having no benefit to society and causing environmental harm” is subjective at best and not laid out properly. His opinion is based on a personal feelings which in my opinion resulted from a lack of information, misunderstandings, generalizations, etc.
The environmental concerns are a point worthy to talk about as do many others. By blaming bitcoin mining as the cause he again shows his lack of understanding and generalizes bitcoin mining as the main culprit for energy consumption. Witch it hasn’t been for years and mining bitcoin has migrated to ASICS a long time ago. Also banning crypto on his “concerns” (if there are really issues) in the EU would not impact this, as most mining is done in places outside the EU. It also would not decrease the global demand (looking at global ownership, adoption, etc.) So I’m not sure what this all about and what he wants to achieve besides just “banning crypto’’in the EU.
Ładowanie komentarzy...