Worse, it’s value is based on the work it requires to grow/maintain it. And that work is based on how much electricity/world resources it uses. Aka. Bad for the environment. And if you were to make say a new crypto currency that used far less processing power, that would be less work and thus have little value.
In other words, you can’t fix the crypto currency problem of massive energy usage without destroying the value of it. When Bitcoin does die, it will have emitted millions of tons of green house gases while providing very few real services/transactions.
That’s not true at all. That only applies to coins using “proof of work.” Ethereum for example is extremely popular and doesn’t use that. You should really learn more about the topic before spreading misinformation.
Yes I am familiar with that and heard that argument before. It does provide some other functions that can negate some of the proof of work. But it is also subject to proof of work to a lesser degree but that means it will also hit some equilibrium. Will that outweigh the benefits it provides and this be ultimately viable and more important, environmentally viable? With my experience in it, I am dubious.
