> I think you are disingenuously being asked to provide a source for an observation that you made informally
So one thinks it is safe to blanket label 'cryptocurrencies' meaning 'all of them' being harmful to the environment due to a basic and very lazy 'observation'. Unfortunately that was left unsubstantiated.
> However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like.
I see. So it is 'annoying' to substantiate your own comments? I don't want to repeat the same line that mentions this in the HN guidelines and it doesn't matter if it is informal or not.
My only request was for a source to this. The commenter knew that the burden of proof was on them to substantiate their assumption and they knew could not provide one or answer the other question.
I accept the source given here which answers the 'observation' claim, it doesn't however, answer if it is the case for every single cryptocurrency since the paper focuses on only two specific ones instead of the rest of them.
So one thinks it is safe to blanket label 'cryptocurrencies' meaning 'all of them' being harmful to the environment due to a basic and very lazy 'observation'. Unfortunately that was left unsubstantiated.
> However, out of annoyance I went and found a source that you can use if you'd like.
I see. So it is 'annoying' to substantiate your own comments? I don't want to repeat the same line that mentions this in the HN guidelines and it doesn't matter if it is informal or not.
My only request was for a source to this. The commenter knew that the burden of proof was on them to substantiate their assumption and they knew could not provide one or answer the other question.
I accept the source given here which answers the 'observation' claim, it doesn't however, answer if it is the case for every single cryptocurrency since the paper focuses on only two specific ones instead of the rest of them.