• capital@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      That is the opposite of apples to apples.

      Per capita measurements exist for a reason.

      • Null User Object@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Per what capita? There’s only one global banking system on Earth. That’s what makes it global. There’s only one Bitcoin blockchain, and it’s globally accessible. Trying to subdivide either into arbitrary regions based on geographic or geopolitical borders is meaningless.

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          How about per ‘people who are actually going to use this shit for day-to-day spending’?

          I just got my mom using a password manager and still have to remote in to help her from time to time. And you wanna get her to move to digital cash that, once stolen, is unrecoverable?

          Get real.

          • Null User Object@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            That’s a strong argument against password managers. We probably shouldn’t allow them, since some people are going to find them difficult to use.

            ETA: Doubling the number of people using Bitcoin (especially on layer 2 protocols), is not going to remotely double it’s energy usage.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      So does that mean that it won’t use appreciably more electricity if it quintuples in size and volume unlike the world banking system?

      • Null User Object@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        You don’t think that the world banking system would use more energy if it quintupled in size? The world banking system uses more energy every time your local credit union installs an ATM at another grocery store.

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          And that’s why we say that per person or per transaction matters. For the amount of value it provides how much does it use? Bitcoin is worse by a lot even if its primary use was as a currency rather than an investment vehicle

        • calcopiritus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Despite having millions of ATMs and banking offices, it uses less energy.

          There’s probably more ATMs than Bitcoin users.

          The Bitcoin network is absolutely tiny in userbase for the amount of energy they waste.