> What is subjective about the numbers about energy consumption? The numbers are not subjective. As stated later it is the opinion on whether it is useful or not that is subjective. > 1 Bitcoin transaction is said to be equivalent to 735121 Visa transactions > This is a bad comparison since it compares two things that are different. A bitcoin tx is just an secp256k1 over some input and output opcodes. So forming at tx is not energy intensive. Processing a tx involves verifying the signature and running the opcodes. So this is also not energy intensive. What is energy intensive is PoW. PoW is used to achieve consensus on the ordering of tx's and *protects* the ledger for being reordered. Visa also ultimately relies on protection by law's and enforcement of those laws by governments within who's jurisdiction it operates. Bitcoin doesn't have any reliance on protection from the state, so it must provide its own protection and it does this through PoW. A better comparison would be comparing bitcoin mining to the US military expenditures. I would agree that military expenditures are too high and war is very bad for the environment. The ability of governments to wage massive wars rest on their ability to 1) collect taxes and 2) manipulating the supply of money. While it is a long shot, cryptos such as bitcoin could be used to prevent or at least make it hard for governments to seize crypto assets from the citizens, which could ultimate hinder them from raising the capital needed to wage mass war. In this context seems to me to be an great use of excess energy. BTW you can already mine bitcoin and monero with current packages. > Guix refuses to have anything to do with non-free software, banning > it from its repositories. That seems a bit authoritarian to me. Some > people would say that's rather arbitrary of Guix. There's still plenty > of software that is being kept non-free, so I guess that ‘software should > be free’ counts as ‘controversial morality’? Yes I agree, but it is quite clear what to expect from a GNU project. I agree with its stance on free software and that is why I use it.  Free software doesn't conflict with open source implementation of cryptocurrencies. I don't think it is fair to start add rules that ban software built with a particular political or ideological view point. It would be better to fork and create a new distro founded on your political and ideological principles. That way all newcomers could choose if participate and agree with the principles, instead of trying to force a participial ideological stance onto existing users that disagree with them. > I suppose that technically, ‘don't mess up the planet’ is ‘controversial > morality’ Once again agree we agree not to mess up the planet. But undermining the governments ability to raise tax and therefor to wage war or not expending energy to prevent government theft is the ‘controversial morality’ that I am sure can be agreed to death and which probably doesn't belong on this list. 2/20/22 17:52, Maxime Devos wrote: > Martin Becze schreef op zo 20-02-2022 om 12:13 [+0100]: >> I don't consider mining to be wastefully and this is a extremely >> subjective opinion. > What is subjective about the numbers about energy consumption? > Quoting myself: > > ‘At least for bitcoin, mining is > known to consume an absurd(*) amount of energy (the footprint of a > whole > country, and 1 Bitcoin transaction is said to be equivalent to 735121 > Visa transactions)[1].’ > > [1]: See, e.g., > https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/2021/03/09/business/dealbook/bitcoin-climate-change.html > / https://www.nytimesn7cgmftshazwhfgzm37qxb44r64ytbb2dj3x62d2lljsciiyd.onion/2021/03/09/business/dealbook/bitcoin-climate-change.html > > (*) the word ‘absurd’ might count as subjective here > > Where exactly you draw the line between wasteful and not wasteful > is rather subjective, but the numbers theirselves seem rather objective > to me and wherever the line lies exactly, these numbers seem to be > well over it. > > It should be a users choose whether or not they want to mine. A > corner stone of free software is "(0) The freedom to run the >> program as you wish, for whatever purpose." By limiting what is >> accessible to the user based an arbitrary, authoritarian and >> controversial morality goes against the nature of free software. > Guix refuses to have anything to do with non-free software, banning > it from its repositories. That seems a bit authoritarian to me. Some > people would say that's rather arbitrary of Guix. There's still plenty > of software that is being kept non-free, so I guess that ‘software should > be free’ counts as ‘controversial morality’? > > Along the same lines, Guix disabling telemetry and removing Google > Analytics from documentation could count as patronising to upstream. > > I suppose that technically, ‘don't mess up the planet’ is ‘controversial > morality’ given the existence of various lobbies etc., but I don't > think we should listen to them; we all live on this planet after all > (unless you're a space alien of course :p) and it's not like we have > any back-ups. > > Additionally, from a technical point of view, nothing in Guix is stopping > people from messing up the planet. If they feel like it, they can > make a package definition and run "guix install -f > produce-lots-of-carbon.scm" or the like, or publish a channel, etc. > > While it's the user's choice whether they _want_ to mine or not > (Guix is not a thought police!), it seems inadvisable to _help_ people > with mining and perhaps useful to _stop_ people from mining. > That is, stop people from doing the act, not stopping people from > wanting to mine. Actually stopping people would be something for the law > and state though, not Guix. > > Caveat: there's a risk of descending a slippery slope here, see e.g. > the mail by Taylan Kammer. > > Greetings, > Maxime.