We never had it. It was just not really useful to destroy someone else's toys.
The key to the current spree of ransomware is the massively improved ability to monetize digital hostage-taking. I don't really understand how financial watchdogs have let this go through, but cryptos have become a massive loophole in kyc and anti-laundering regulations. Recent moves in that sector seem to hint that this party is about to end and, hopefully, will create enough friction to reduce ransomware activity.
Cryptocurrencies have been a disaster. The only place to actually use is a currency is in criminal activity. The amount of environmental damage caused by proof of work is massive. We need regulation.
Your question comes loaded with the assumption that all energy production is equal. In reality, energy harvested from hydro or geothermal may have lots of value for proof of work processes, but they don't have lots of value for someone living far away from the hydro or geothermal plant.
There are other energy consumers than can be located next to cheap energy, like aluminium production. This alone explains why iceland is a significant exporter of energy-intensive manufactured products.
Well if you want to consider that an assumption, energy from coal has lots of value, if proof of work got profitable enough.
Which... it already has. Coal plants have been spooled up just to mine btc. The idea that we should continue or expand crypto mining is ludicrous, because it already has harmed the environment, even at its small market cap.
A currency should take less than .00001% of global energy consumption to run. Absolutely no reason to burn energy like this. Use proof of stake or just convert some other valuable entity like stock into currency.
Depends on which cryptocurrency you're talking about. Bitcoin? 0%. Monero? +Infinity.
The real question is: why do we still allow oil companies to exist when they're the ones responsible for much of the world's pollution? Because the USD is backed by oil.
Probably because attempting to enforce an oil ban overnight would probably involve death counts in the 9-10 digits. That is why any attempt is going to be progressive, and we can all agree that it's not going nearly fast enough.
That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though.
> That question is kind of a diversion from the current discussion, though.
It's really not. Cryptocurrencies have no real impact on the environment so discussing that is not really productive. Better to redirect discussion towards real problems which are actually destroying the planet. Problems which will never be properly solved because powerful people depend on their existence. The petrodollar, trade with China, etc.
Redirection is not distraction. The topic is environmental impact. Discussing cryptocurrency's impact is pointless because it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. People apparently believe cryptocurrency is some kind of high priority problem that needs to be dealt with ASAP. In reality, it's responsible for less than 1% of global energy consumption and pollution. Pointing this out ends that discussion.
People insist on posting this FUD. I get it, they're concerned about the environment. So let's talk about real problems instead. Such as the highly polluting chinese manufacturers which no doubt fabricated the hardware we are using to write our opinions.
The real distraction is this "cryptocurrencies kill the environment" idea.
I wouldn't blame crypto for crime, but a system that makes it practically anonymous large volume payments overseas has helped make these ransomware attacks feasible. The 4 figure scams with bank transfers and mailing cash seem kinda quaint.
The same cryptography that protects us also protects criminals. The whole point is to make total government surveillance impossible. That's what this KYC/AML business is all about: surveillance.
People should be able to transact freely without some government demanding explanations. If there's more crime as a result then so be it.
I'm not into cryptocurrency at all, but I've read that some of the billion-dollar casinos in Las Vegas take it.
My domain registrar does, and it's not exactly a fly-by-night operation.
I think at least one airline does. Though I might be remembering that wrong.
I won't ever get into crypto because I like money that keeps working when the lights go out. But I don't think it's either as fringe, nor as mainstream, as the two sides present.
The statement was a bit hyperbolic, but not by much. Have you ever used cryptocurrency for any routine transaction? How much total money have you spent in cryptocurrency if so? It's very newsworthy when people like Elon musk say they will accept cryptocurrency for the very reason that most businesses do not. And I would be surprised if more than a handful of Teslas have been sold via cryptocurrency.
Musk has already backtracked on accepting crypto at Tesla, citing environmental concerns. A cynical person might assume that it was just a publicity stunt in order to pump bitcoin.
Maybe computers shouldn't be talking to strangers in the first place. Why do they accept connections from anyone? These problems would be rare if only authorized persons could connect. Single packet authorization makes the computer ignore all traffic unless a cryptographically signed packet is sent. It's like the computer is not even there. Can't exploit anything without the ability to send payloads.
Of course, the internet would lose its mass appeal. Maybe it wasn't meant to be.
I’m not sure what the answer is but better security and a rethinking of user authorizations seems to be in order.