Traditional currencies aren't advertised as being decentralised.

What the hell: boom, bang, kaboom, ahoy, yippee ki yay.

> Oh, and Shakespeare would have spoken with an accent more like an American than I do.

Would you explain what you mean by this, I'm very curious.

AE conserves features of early modern English, like rhoticity.

There is also some conjecture that certain regional English in america, namely the Ozark region retained some Shakespearean/Elizabethan words and pronunciations and phrases due to its geographic seclusion.

I read about the reasons somewhere, but basically it is a general phenomenon where colonists lock in the habits and culture of their homeland as they remember it, and are more resistant to natural change.

It should be, but Bitcoin's influence on other crypto currencies will still outweigh their own growth vectors for a little while.

If Bitcoin stabilises a bit from here I think we'll see Ethereum continue to grow a bit again.

They're his posts?

Oh, of course. Thanks.

I don't particularly believe BTC is the messiah, but if the internet in your country goes down, how do you imagine you're going to get the money in your bank account? You might rush to an ATM before they get swarmed, but you're definitely not withdrawing all your money and transferring won't be an option.

I found no instance of the word "objective" in the GP's comment, so no pointing necessary.

Pray tell, which part is it that you find fault with?

It assumes the value of Bitcoin is in the mining of new coins. The network also has value as a ledger to record transfers of Bitcoin (billions per day) which contributes to the value of the network

The analysis can be generalized to say anything that uses 0.05 electricity creates these large harms. Perhaps true, but it’s not going to be unique to Bitcoin

This. This bad argument about value of cryptocurrencies being mining, lack of perspective and policy proposals in the paper are the most obvious signs of bias.

You could say that to GP who just dismissed a published study without actually taking on any of the claims made therein.

They questioned the methodology specifically. So it's not just an assertion.

...of a published study. The only reason people are defending GP now is because the subject is BTC.

Just because it's a published study does not mean it's infallible. Please see my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411

Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Power transmission is a thing (California does it) and if we weren’t using the power to mine BTC it could be used to power other things. Again, people are only arguing for BTC on this site because it’s hacker news, nothing else.

> Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables.

Then any "published study" on this topic is automatically going to be flawed as well?

More like since renewables are not commonplace and it costs money to move its easier to believe they are not using renewables.

You can of course believe whatever seems easy to you, but you do realize that I linked to a published study that says miners are using renewables far more than the US does on average, don't you?

32% of miners use renewables. That’s not even a majority amongst miners.