pouët.net

annual bitcoin TWh -> 129
annual standby power TWh (in USA alone) -> 398
(using golden rule 10% of total energy use (3,989 TWh in USA) is wasted on standby power)
so. nowhere near. just chucking out facts, okkie! enjoy destroying the world with your iPhone charger! :D

Out of curiosity I checked a few of the studies that were done in recent years, about that topic - and lo and behold - what you say is still bullshit. Yes, there's a considerable "idle" power draw in households but almost nothing of it comes from devices in standby more.

(wanna know more? Fucking google, lol!)

Yes. He also didn't take residential vs industrial power usage into account.

But even if it was completely true I don't see how the existence of one form of waste can be used as an argument for adding even more waste.

well, i know it's the always-on devices like your fridge, router etc that are the real bastards and i use the iPhone charger as a joke argument, but still, its totality is significantly more than bitcoin mining and thus still bigger concern for the environment than cryptos! save a penguin, unplug your fridge!

aaand what you just heard was the tiny "plop" of a small point completely evaporating.

To be honest, on a higher level, "cryptocurrency is only as bad as this other bad thing" isn't a great argument to begin with.

Also there are other cryptocurrencies that would need to be added to above "calculation". I think by now miners are more focussing on eth than on btc

I think food preservation is a necessity and we should spend more energy on it than churning out Internet money and using it to pretend we just bought the Moon, but hey, that's just me

hahaha, oh maali you knob.

Robbie's tu quoque fu is stronk.

only a 17420% intrest-spurt left on my crypto investment and i'll toot toot with my bitcoin-bought Ferrari to all you greenhouse hippies!

Speaking strictly from my personal experience, whataboutisms are usually deployed by 4 kinds of people/behaviour : a) dishonest ones with an ulterior agenda, b) unintelligent ones who think of themselves as very intelligent, c) ones with deep personal frustrations, d) trolls. (the crudely constructed categories overlap and their number is somewhat redundant, so mileage may vary) .. In any conversation. About anything. Just saying...

I haven't looked much into NFTs because I don't fall for any crypto-anything. And even if I blocked all "*NFT*" words on twitter when it got really annoying, it's still my understanding that NFTs have nothing to do with people buying the art they like, and all with buying and signatures instead, as investment within a new pyramid. Ie, it replicates the ugliest part of traditional art collecting, it does not solve any problem for digital artists?

In fact, if you actually want to help digital artists, you can go to Etsy, Redbubble, Artstation or any other one million online stores/galleries and buy yourself a couple of prints from them to hang on your wall. Or if you happen to be have any hiring decision power within a large company or studio, go make an effort and make a case to hire artists full time and with full benefits rather than as contactors if that's what the company has been doing so far.

Anyway, as I understand it, NFTs are not here to fix any problem for artists but to enable some young investors make money rapidly. Time will tell.

(and among all my spelling mistakes yet, "contactors" must be my favorite)

That's the only pro-NFT argument I came across so far, that sort of makes sense (ignoring the environmental concerns, assuming the use of the "greener" NFTs which seem to exist). If you're curious about that point of view check f.e. "What does it mean to buy a gif". There the author (a generative artist) draws a parallel between buying NFTs and buying signed photographic prints... It'd be so much better if collectors would support artists directly (without the need for NFTs at all) but collectors seem to need a "fetish" or a proof-of-bragging-rights (I don't think it's morally wrong for artists to be wanting to cash on that)...

I wonder what will be the next step, Banksy is going to sell artworks featuring fake NFTs that will destroy themselves when sales are done, and this will be considered as genius, so fake NFTs will be considered as the actual piece of art instead of the artwork itself?
So maybe we will have NFTs to copyright fake NFTs, can't wait to see how deep we'll explore the vacuity.

Someone who couldn't bother to do a google search for "demoscene" claiming the scene as an nft progenitor.. https://twitter.com/zardozclub/status/1400066893990486023

There are few things that make as angry as coopting for personal gain.

That looks like a sarcastic joke to me.... I hope... ("Proof of Floppy Disk"? Admit it, that's a pretty good one.)

Given that it's a "#cryptoart gallery", I doubt it.

I'm not saying it's dead as a doornail but the market sure looks to loose momentum:
https://kotaku.com/the-nft-market-has-collapsed-oh-no-1847021181

Vitalik Buterin and NFTs - https://youtu.be/XW0QZmtbjvs?t=8170
"I can't relate to this concept of speding a lot of money on a thing, where there is no clear understanding of why that thing would maintaining this value" So true! :)

It could be the technology behind NFTs is not the right one at the moment, but the idea of some kind of decentralized authenticity/ownership network is pretty cool. It might take some time before this technology finds it right form. In the meantime I hope artists can make a quick coin!

Could it be possible to create your NFT-link and then issue takedown requests on any other link or copy made out there? If the content somehow matches your NFT in any way? (presumably today's mechanism is not able to do that, but some future mechanism might)

I'm in retard/rambling post mode, so here goes. If you make a picture and register the NFT for it.. And then say that any image-search detection on google or other search engines would alert you to copies of this NFT that is not using the authentic NFT link and then through the power of international law you can strike upon thee and cash in the rewards, take down the false links/prophets..



ok.

I see little hope of any legal system spending resources on cracking down on illegitimate use of a GIF so it'll be a civil suit and if you loose you'll pay for the defendant's legal expenses. As stated earlier in the thread NFTs don't mean jack shit in the legal department as of now so YMMV.