Yes, believable, from all the payment methods available, Greenpeace would choose the most fucking inefficient one, that wastes 700 kWh for a single transaction, that’s 100 households!

  • PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    You’re arguing in bad faith and I’m not going to put up with your stupid straw man. Your statement was that it requires 700 kilowatt hours for a single transaction and that is blatantly false. You seem to ignore the obvious fact that Bitcoin can be transferred unlimited number of times and you do not have to re-mine the Bitcoin every single time you transfer it. As I said earlier, I already agree with you that Bitcoin sucks and you’re wasting your time arguing with me over semantics.

    • Magnetic_dud@discuss.tchncs.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      14 days ago

      Can you do a transfer without mining a block?

      No, it needs to be included in any freshly mined block.

      Can you include an unlimited amount of transactions in a block to minimize the wasted energy?

      No, it’s hardcoded to around 1 mb and since the average is 300 bytes, that translates to ~3000

      Can you mine a Bitcoin without wasting an immense amount of energy?

      No.

      So, by math, you take that immense amount of energy and divide by ~3000 transactions.

      You can’t just take in consideration the 3 watts used by your computer in the 300 milliseconds used to submit the transfer, need to consider the whole network

      I would be happy to learn if it’s possible to transfer them without including the transaction in a block, that would be groundbreaking and then the electricity used would be 10000x less