Submitted 5 weeks ago by Magnetic_dud@discuss.tchncs.de to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://discuss.tchncs.de/pictrs/image/c7f6d1f2-f579-4d66-abe8-c5d7445f801d.png
Yes, believable, from all the payment methods available, Greenpeace would choose the most fucking inefficient one, that wastes 700 kWh for a single transaction, that’s 100 households!
That’s fucking hysterical.
The balls on that guy to try to float Bitcoin as good for the environment.
He’d be better off impersonating OPEC.
Sending my bank information with smoke signals from burning tires would be more eco…
Lol, 700kWh?
Crypto is very powerhungry, but it’s not even close to that much much
It’s a conservative estimate, it’s even higher than that
Crypto-biased source: coindesk.com/…/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-use/ (you would expect they downplay the number)
You can just take a calculator and do by yourself the math from publicly available stats bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/
In the past 24 hours a block contains in average only 3500 transactions. Then that block needs to be validated by many other nodes in following calculations.
This is why it’s the most inefficient payment method, very slow (3500 transactions in only ten minutes), expensive for the user (transfer fees are high) and power hungry
You have no idea what you’re talking about, or else you’re intentionally misleading people. Transferring Bitcoin in a single transaction takes nowhere near as much power as mining it. Yes, BTC is stupid and terrible for the environment, but you don’t need to lie about the stats.
You should censor the scam bitcoin address when you screenshot things like this.
Why? So people won’t send something to an address known to be a scam?
Yes.
Not only can people be pretty dumb sometimes, once the screenshot is on the Internet, who knows where it might get reposted, potentially without context.
Honestly the kinds of people who support Greenpeace are the ones who are likely gullible.
You’re not wrong, greenpeace is oil funded and has always been employed to redirect environmentalism away from anything that actually hurts the oil industry.
Even more than that they seem to be more emotional than rational. They play on the doom and gloom heavily.
Its the same thing with politicians cutting down the rain forest to put up wind turbines
I wonder what fraction of Bitcoin mining energy comes from renewable sources. I bet it’s teeny tiny.
A quick google search said it was 52.4%
That seems high, though I guess if they’re doing it in a state with high renewable energy, that’s what they’re using. It uses a crazy high amount of energy though.
What app is this? (sorry)
It honestly sounds more like someone convincing you that crypto is great than someone convincing you that Greenpeace is great.
slazer2au@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Good news, no one has fallen for it yet.
blockstream.info/…/17XuABv4AHLDjcaWzrRpURoBS7536k…
Mora@pawb.social 5 weeks ago
More likely every recipient gets his own address. An easy way to track who to send more of these mails to.
Magnetic_dud@discuss.tchncs.de 5 weeks ago
For a generic non personalized spam, IMHO it would be too expensive to generate and track millions of wallets. They could have placed a tracking pixel for much less (they didn’t, the email is just plain text)
If then it’s some targeted campaign, then yes, a dedicated BTC address makes sense as you said