Bitcoins to the moon - Page 22

I do tons of things about it actually, I'm much lower than avg westerner as a co2 emitter personally. I don't fly or drive or eat meat. But also I educate people on this kind of stuff outside of work. The personal consumption stuff is mostly a propaganda campaign originating from BP anyway (they invented carbon footprint calculators) in an attempt to divert the public from politics. It's easy for me to not consume tho. There are some personal sacrifices, I had to teach myself economics so I could see if the critiques of it were right.

I don't judge people, "violence" is a descriptive term. It is obvious that being very rich in any way is a form of violent extremism. I wouldn't say I'm utilitarian at all but I include structural violence as 'violence'. Obviously I'm not a violent extremist because I'm not super rich. I think once you start going past a few million you probably are getting towards levels that can be deemed violent, since that's enough to last a lifetime. Obviously I lived a life as a parasitic poker player but I'm past that now.

Some basic numbers: Air pollution kills 10,000,000 ppl a year prematurely. btc mining was at peak using about 0.5% of worlds energy, using coal in china. 10,000,000 x0.005 = 50,000. Ppl should be educated on this stuff the same way they were for tobacco.

The renewables used to mine it could be used for more useful things. We are headed to be 4x over planetary boundaries in terms of resource extraction by 2050 if it's kept up at this pace, according to many scientific studies. So yes, to much extraction is deadly at this point. Especially if it's spent on garbage.

Inflation has peaked and will go down shortly, since supply sides are stabilizing. "everybody besides apparently" just me, the IMF, and lots of economists, the mainstream media to a large extent think this haha. Idk what this idea about localized being a thing is to you, as if many business's don't supply products to the whole word?. When people actually study inflation they look at all sorts of industries to make cross comparative analysis.

The house prices is an interesting one you bring up because that happened here and it was from monetary policy, which is something i'm arguing against. There's nothing on the supply side there. No government program or policy for building houses, which would clearly lead to lower house prices.

The good life is attainable without excessive extraction of resources for consumerism and bitcoin.

The re-definition of words, the apocalyptic premunitions that never materialize that justify insane arguments... yes the torch has passed from Loco to you lol.

You equate energy use to killing, you are killing people every day but you are ok became some westerners kill less? every second you aren't cranking a generator by hand you are letting people die you monster haha, this reminds me of an old superman comic:



Why do lefties claim to understand economics yet speak as if it were a zero sum game? you can kill the kulaks as many times as you want and you will get the same harrowing results.

Energy used to secure BTC isnt useless, quite the opposite, a free decentralized monetary system to topple the rent seeking banking cartels and federal reserves that bankrupt countries that are the scourge of the earth I would say is a better use of wattage than your microwave.

Oh yes, the IMF, the Fed and mainstream media indeed agreed with you on the "transitory inflation" are you living mid 2022 or something? yeah turns out it was false and inflation werent going back so they were forced to crank up interset rates so hard that banks are going bust and now they are in a disjuctive, do they let banks fail or do they let the printer go brrrr, they chose the later.


anyway you are a graph man, heres one:

Justin Sun sued by the SEC for securities fraud, apparently now every PoS Crypto is a security, the american government war on crypto is scaling up yet the price keeps going up.

On March 24 2023 07:29 Baalim wrote: You equate energy use to killing

Um no I don't. I equate using too much energy on useless shit as killing people. I wouldn't say I kill people because I don't waste too much energy on useless shit, though I do use a bit more than the average person in the world, I'm guessing. Doesn't matter though, I'm not interested in shaming people over their personal lifestyles, nor am I claiming to be that decent. Criticism at the personal level is depoliticizing and childish.

There are some justifications for people using lots of energy if it has some sort of value. Bitcoin mining doesn't meet that criteria.

"The re-definition of words, the apocalyptic premunitions that never materialize that justify insane arguments"

Your ignoring everything in the scientific literature, the IPCC and other mainstream institutions.

- 5-6 tipping points are in serious danger of undergoing irreversible change (latest IPCC AR6)
- AMOC has slowed by 15% since scientists started measuring it.
If reaches 40-50%, the whole climate will be transformed.
- droughts destroying Sahel region
- mass species extinction (which means large eco-system collapse->loss of carbon sinks)
- Splitting of the polar jet stream
- Increased hurricane intensity and exponential likelihood increase of heatwaves as temperature rises.
- dismantling of almost every nuclear arms treaty over last few decades
- hence why 90 seconds left on doomsday clock
- on the path to 3 or more degrees by 2100, which may well be enough to collapse civilization.

Could list much, much more.

There are quite a few scientists that have come round to the view that there needs to be mass economic mobilization ww2 style. Though, to be fair, they make pretty conservative statements historically because economics isn't their area of expertise.

Your anti-science rhetoric is shameful shit, literally calling them 'premunitions' lol. Nah, they are predictions. But apocalyptic is too hyperbolic. There's still time left to do something. Aside from underestimating tipping points, they have been very accurate. There's no phukking way civilization could withstand 4 degrees or higher.

"free decentralized monetary system to topple the rent seeking banking cartels and federal reserves that bankrupt countries that are the scourge of the earth I would say is a better use of wattage than your microwave"

Don't have a clue what your talking about here unfortunately. If you got rid of the shitty monetary policy that the fed props up a stagnant economy with and replace with bitcoin, the economy would collapse into depression. If you got rid of our corrupt rent seeking banks and replaced with bitcoin, we'd be like Greece 8 years ago. Idk if that's what your proposing, but you kinda need a banking system to get credit from somewhere and if you don't have one your economy will collapse as bad as Greece or Russia did (in the 1990's).

Maybe since you know better than scientists and economists, go present your findings to them in person? I used to do that to economists until i realized it's like talking to a brick wall hahaha. Some of them are truly moronic.

I'm not left wing i'm a centrist.

On March 24 2023 13:56 lostaccount wrote: that is a funny ass comic strip lol i had a good laugh but stroggoz do u still gamble or play poker?

I am a software engineer now, no poker in 1-2 years.

On March 24 2023 09:12 Stroggoz wrote: Show nested quote + On March 24 2023 07:29 Baalim wrote: You equate energy use to killing Um no I don't. I equate using too much energy on useless shit as killing people. I wouldn't say I kill people because I don't waste too much energy on useless shit, though I do use a bit more than the average person in the world, I'm guessing. Doesn't matter though, I'm not interested in shaming people over their personal lifestyles, nor am I claiming to be that decent. Criticism at the personal level is depoliticizing and childish. There are some justifications for people using lots of energy if it has some sort of value. Bitcoin mining doesn't meet that criteria.

First of all your 0.5% of the worlds energy is wrong by a big margin, I've already explaind with sources to Loco before go look it up.

Second your perception of it being frivolous is also wrong, I think you washing and drying your clothes with machines is more frivolous, in fact clothes dryers alone consume more energy, wich is obviously a much more frivolous thing.

Your ignoring everything in the scientific literature, the IPCC and other mainstream institutions.

The concensus is that the increase in temperature in the last decades is concerning and likely man-made, so efforts to reduce and I'm all for it bud, lets transition to the clean energy that makes more sense, nuclear, especially for big developing countres like China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan etc that obviously.

Dude I've said that like 20 times without exaggerating in this thread alone with Loco, he simply says the only way to fix it isnt switing energy sources, but to dismantle capitalism lmao.

There are quite a few scientists that have come round to the view that there needs to be mass economic mobilization ww2 style. Though, to be fair, they make pretty conservative statements historically because economics isn't their area of expertise.

I don't know what they could possibly mean with ww2 economic mass mobilization.

Your anti-science rhetoric is shameful shit, literally calling them 'premunitions' lol. Nah, they are predictions. But apocalyptic is too hyperbolic. There's still time left to do something. Aside from underestimating tipping points, they have been very accurate. There's no phukking way civilization could withstand 4 degrees or higher.

It isn't antiscience to laugh at fools making preditions on complex systems they barely understand, as you can see every prediction made by Al Gore and climate activist has been wrong, in fact Gretha Thunberg had to delete a tweet a couple of days ago about UK being underwater by now, but please, feel free to make a fool out of yourself too, give me a specific prediction of consecuences of global warming, go ahead, when will miami will be underwater? gotta check that prediction from Loco about the end of the world as we know it, was it 2030?

Don't have a clue what your talking about here unfortunately. If you got rid of the shitty monetary policy that the fed props up a stagnant economy with and replace with bitcoin, the economy would collapse into depression. If you got rid of our corrupt rent seeking banks and replaced with bitcoin, we'd be like Greece 8 years ago. Idk if that's what your proposing, but you kinda need a banking system to get credit from somewhere and if you don't have one your economy will collapse as bad as Greece or Russia did (in the 1990's).

When I talk about the banking cartels I mean the Federal reserve, fractional reserve banking system and the plethora of monopolistic moats in banking, not about loans, which would obviously happen in crypto.

In fact borrowing is one of the most common uses of DEFI, of course it requires collateral of other forms of crypto, but as smart contracts grow you will easily be able to appraise your house and put it up as a collateral for a loan with no middle men in between hence getting much better interest rates than in tradfi, also undercollateralized loans can also work with smart contracts attached to your monthly wage.

It would work like regular banks but much better rates for people because you don't have to pay up all the rent-seeking middle men, also you don't get shit like 08 or what SVB did right now, banks use depositors money to gamble, and these depositors have all the risk and none of the yield in DEFI anyone providing liquidity gets a share of the yield, and you see exactly where your money is so you know the risks.

And the best perk of all you dont get a central banking printing money diluting the coins value as a form of infinite taxation.

Maybe since you know better than scientists and economists, go present your findings to them in person?

"Hey Mr Powell, I think the federal reserve system you preside over is an absolute hoax, lets switch to a global currency you won't control" Yeah I'm sure he will be ecstatic to hear that.

I'm not left wing i'm a centrist.

yeah... I don't think so fam

I already made my prediction, which is that if the world reaches 4 degrees celcius, civilization would collapse. That's about 100 or slightly more years away at present pace. It's far from an original or hyperbolic prediction. Honestly the latest report from the IPCC are far more stark. In my view a collapse would probably be before then.

The reasons are obvious why civilization would collapse. One of them is that agriculture exists within a small window of temperatures and climate. Four degree's average global temperature translates to much higher averages on land. We might be able to grow enough food but the problem would be that food security wouldn't exist.

Also it likely be enough to halt the AMOC, which would disrupt global climate. For example America and Europe would experience colder temperatures which could ruin agriculture there very quickly. The other parts of the world would get the other side of that coin. There would be no way to prevent carbon sinks dying off on mass at those temperatures. Almost all of Australia's forests would burn down as example. This was predicted to start happening in 2020, which it did.

There are climate scientists like Will Steffan who thinks we might already have been put on a path towards a 'hothouse' scenario.
Anyways, if society doesn't want the kind of risk of entering that scenario, some basic math shows renewable + nuclear transition isn't enough. There has to be a large drop in resource extraction and regeneration of carbon sinks as well, to even cap at below 2 degrees. Should also note that the fossil fuel industry is planning to burn all their fuels into making plastics even if we do transition.

I'm sympathetic to Loco's position that capitalism should be gotten rid of. It's undemocratic. So not just the environmental problems it's causing, but many other reasons too. I don't see how it should be an immediate focus though, because there are more immediate concerns.

On March 25 2023 05:50 lostaccount wrote: oh nice but since u play poker as an income before u got to realize not everything is black n white esp in todays world.

Software engineering can be a pretty evil industry as well lol. I'm making some good shit tho. I don't get why people are obsessed with personal judgement and shaming. Everyone's compromised in life unless they have several million$$

On March 25 2023 09:25 Stroggoz wrote: I already made my prediction, which is that if the world reaches 4 degrees celcius, civilization would collapse. That's about 100 or slightly more years away at present pace. It's far from an original or hyperbolic prediction. Honestly the latest report from the IPCC are far more stark. In my view a collapse would probably be before then. The reasons are obvious why civilization would collapse. One of them is that agriculture exists within a small window of temperatures and climate. Four degree's average global temperature translates to much higher averages on land. We might be able to grow enough food but the problem would be that food security wouldn't exist. Also it likely be enough to halt the AMOC, which would disrupt global climate. For example America and Europe would experience colder temperatures which could ruin agriculture there very quickly. The other parts of the world would get the other side of that coin. There would be no way to prevent carbon sinks dying off on mass at those temperatures. Almost all of Australia's forests would burn down as example. This was predicted to start happening in 2020, which it did. There are climate scientists like Will Steffan who thinks we might already have been put on a path towards a 'hothouse' scenario. Anyways, if society doesn't want the kind of risk of entering that scenario, some basic math shows renewable + nuclear transition isn't enough. There has to be a large drop in resource extraction and regeneration of carbon sinks as well, to even cap at below 2 degrees. Should also note that the fossil fuel industry is planning to burn all their fuels into making plastics even if we do transition. I'm sympathetic to Loco's position that capitalism should be gotten rid of. It's undemocratic. So not just the environmental problems it's causing, but many other reasons too. I don't see how it should be an immediate focus though, because there are more immediate concerns.

This sounds like a reasonable take except the resource extraction part, what does it has to do with CO2 in the atmosphere?

I think the best solution is to start implement the best solution we have right now wich is Nuclear and invest heavily into fusion or other energy forms, carbon sinks etc, It can be scary since its a race of tech vs time that we dont have any certanty we will win however it would be foolish to think that the more "certain" approach of degrowth is the way to go, to try to convince the world to cooperate and go against its nature is much more difficult than to keep pushing the boundaries of technology

LOL @ thinking that Loco's dream is democratic, he advocated for gulags for political dissidents where they would be imprisoned and re-educated, but lets not get into retarded beliefs.

btw didnt you say you were a centrist? and the only reason you wouldnt impose global communism is because its not an immediate concern?

Yeah so a lot of it depends on which kind of resource. Could go through some examples:

Extracting resources like coal is the absolute worst because it puts CO2 in the air and kills the people who extract it.
Extracting resources like copper is harmful to the environment in many ways. It decreases biodiversity which means less carbon absorbed by plants and soil, but also the act of destroying biodiverse environments releases carbon in itself. It also poisons nearby water.
Extracting lithium has similar problems, though perhaps not as bad as copper.
Industrial logging, slash and burn for agriculture obviously removes carbon sinks, which means more carbon in the atmosphere.
Insect extinction has the consequence of more carbon in the atmosphere. How much, I don't know. But you need them to support parts of the ecosystem. Worth pointing that out even if it's not technically extraction.
List goes on...

It's a complex issue. It's clear that some resource extraction is worse than others. But extraction isn't just tied to emissions.
It's also clear, if scientific studies are believed, that it can't continue at current rates.
It doesn't just contribute to air pollution though, but other planetary boundaries. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab842a/meta
That's the study. I only read the abstract/intro and conclusion. There are some others.

Being opposed to capitalism is the political centre. I realized this to be true once I started looking at global opinion polling and the history of the global south, and it's long historical resistance to it. But also resistance to it in rich countries.This is why I no longer call myself left wing even though most would say I'm far left. I recognize that those people are using a strange definition of a political compass, and imo are wrong. Sometimes I will call myself 'left' if I don't want to confuse people and don't have time to explain it all.

Centrism is one of those double think words, in every political system it basically means to be someone who has passively absorbed the views of their own culture. Actually there is a word for it in anthropology that is kinda similar, called 'ethnocentrism'. So a bootlicking Putinist claiming Russia's foreign policy is a 'centrist' in their culture. Similarly, a bootlicking liberal at the NYT claiming America's foreign policy has benevolent intentions is also at the 'centre' in America. So centrism is never coherent when you do a cross cultural comparison. I don't believe in respecting other people's cultural beliefs if I think they are wrong, as I'm sure your aware by now. So when I'm calling myself the centre, I'm using the opposite of the double think definition.

Idk what Loco's entire views are, but I'm pro-democracy. I wouldn't impose communism on anyone. I think ya just gotta reason it out and see what people would vote for in a free society.

"however it would be foolish to think that the more "certain" approach of degrowth is the way to go, to try to convince the world to cooperate and go against its nature is much more difficult than to keep pushing the boundaries of technology."

The issue is technical efficiency in energy use improvements average about 1.1% per year over the last century. This is less than the rate of resource extraction, which correlates with GDP growth.
If resource extraction increased at 1% per year instead of 2.5% then we would fall back down towards safe zones. But since we have left it so long, we now must require, essentially, 'politically impossible' levels of reduction to back down to safe zones.

We can decouple growth from emissions. Even after taking into accounting fraud, Britain has managed some decoupling of emissions and growth. But no one has done it for resource extraction.

Back to $29k

Back to 30k