Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?

[Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2166 bytes --]

Attila Lendvai schreef op ma 21-02-2022 om 09:29 [+0000]:
> let me add, though, that a more apples-to-apples comparison here would be to
> compare Bitcoin to the FED, and PoW to the costs of enforcing the PetroDollar
> system on the entire world.

Here PetroDollar = US dollar and FED=US Federal Government?

> these costs not only include the direct environmental damages of wars and
> militaries. more generally, it also includes the costs of enforcing a certain
> economic structure globally, instead of potential better alternatives for
> facilitating cooperation between strangers that may very well promote peace and
> prosperity more effectively and efficiently than the current system.

If the US Government enforces the US Dollar with wars etc., then this
seems more a bug of the US than a benefit of Bitcoin to me.  Also, I
don't understand what you mean with ‘enforcing’ here.

Locally, in Belgium, I can use the Euro as currency.  The US isn't
forcing me to use the US dollar, in fact I have never seen a US dollar
in person and most (all?) local businesses accept the Euro as currency
and most physical shops wouldn't accept foreign currency(*).

I can also use the US dollar as currency to buy from overseas (after
trading Euro for US dollar, this happens automatically when
e-shopping), even though the US hasn't stationed military forces
at the banks to force the banks to allow converting Euro<->US dollar.

I'm not seeing any enforcement here, nor any need for enforcement to
make the US dollar a usable currency.

While the US would (does?) wage wars to force countries to trade with
the US (and perhaps force them to accept US dollar maybe?), I don't see
how Bitcoin would change this -- Bitcoin might change the currency used
for the forced trade, but not the existence of the forced trade.

(*) at least, I think so, I haven't ever tried.

> and from that perspective i don't see the use of 'absurd amount' justified, by a large margin.
> 
> and the more some of us disagree with the above, the more appropriate it seems to have been to use 'controversial morality' by Martin.

Greetings,
Maxime.

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]