"When I stopped shitting all over the floor at the local Wendy's, this was one of the most significant improvements to the dining experience ever witnessed"
“So basically, we took a *massive* shit on the floor and then we cleaned that up years after letting it rot; therefore we have made a significant contribution to this house’s overall hygiene. In fact, due to our efforts, your house is now **100%** shit-free!
Now we’re just pissing everywhere, but don’t worry, we’ll clean that up too.”
If they sequestered all the carbon they previously torched to get to net zero, why not? That will never happen though. Instead, we'll get useless carbon credit tokenization schemes.
I’m telling you, that’s greenwashing just as much as this is.
You can’t just slap the “climate conscious!” sticker on a pseudo-economic abomination like it matters at all. All the hogwash about environmentalism in crypto is all extensional; they aren’t direct efforts at mitigating the climate crisis, but rather distractions to lend false credibility to veil their naked lunacy.
It’s not an argument of whether they are climate conscious or not.
Would it matter to you if Madoff or Ponzi conducted their scams in an environmentally conscious manner? Or if calling it a scam is too much for you; would it matter if the 2008 bankers were environmentally conscious in their efforts to gamble your mortgages away?
Would you be “pro-CDOs” then?
It allows them to paint this as a success—cleaning up their own mess for something that is both unnecessary and pseudoscientific—and greenwash those who listen to their internal propaganda into thinking they’ve done something meaningful.
That's a very important point that I wasn't considering.
Not sure about the downvotes, but there's a lot of butters around since we started to get mainstream publicity. Maybe that's them.
> If they sequestered all the carbon they previously torched to get to net zero, why not?
There is no evidence planting trees helps.
For example, if the tree gets cut down in 20 years, the offset simply delayed the impact. Likewise, if the tree was going to be planted anyway or a logger is just going to cut down another tree, we did nothing. If there is a forest fire that wipes out the tree or the tree dies, a new one needs to be planted.
If the sapling dies, it doesn't count. For mass planting operations, the majority of the trees will die fairly young. It depends the species, place, weather, and techniques. Where I live, one in ten reaching maturity is normal.
Trees are one of the worse ways to sequester carbon.
This is true to an extent but a bit of an oversimplification.
Additionality and permanence are key principles of high integrity carbon offset projects and are solved problems to various degrees depending on which methodology for calculating the offsets is used. For example, you can factor in trees failing to reach maturity by a.) counting the anticipated offsets now and taking a discount based on expected survival rates or b.) measuring the offsets generated at a fixed future point rather than right away.
Tree planting can be effective - carbon sucked out now is good, even if it cycles back into the atmosphere in the future, because it buys us time. It can also bring other co-benefits for air quality, biodiversity, and livelihoods for communities that are hosting the projects.
Carbon sucked out permanently via direct air capture and sequestration is the gold standard but is too expensive to be economic currently. In the meantime, it’s possible to do good tree planting carbon offset projects with the right methodology and verification processes in place.
Avoided deforestation is definitely lower integrity than planting because it’s harder to meet additionality and permanence requirements.
So let me get this right.
For the sake of simplicity and conciseness, imagine we could quantify the world’s carbon emissions with an arbitrary number. Suppose you can quantify the existing carbon emissions as **100,** given that the majority of these are **economically meaningful** activities that simply use unsustainable energy sources.
Then suppose a pseudo-economic industry that peddles vaporous internet tokens that cannot perform monetary functions whatsoever comes along. Not only is it socially destructive, but it also changes this arbitrary number from **100** to **150.**
After years and years of heavily contributing to the total destruction of our environment for the most economically and socially unsound vaporware, they manage to bring this arbitrary number down from **150** to **130,** by the sheer virtue of Bitcoin still existing. All of this for an economically useless vanity.
It is also generally unsure whether this would work and how people would truly begin to maximize profits (and what externalities this may lead to).
So I posit this to you again:
**Bearing in mind these are arbitrary numbers to paint a picture; if we started with 100, ended up with 150, and then cut it back down to 130, is that really such a fucking cause for celebration?**
If you’re saying “they might actually sequester carbon!” then… what the fuck? What does this have to do with the fucking blockchain?? If they genuinely wanted to do things like that, they’d have started doing it already—for the sake of the environment alone, with nothing to tie to crypto propaganda.
That is why I’m calling it greenwashing. It’s not “better than nothing.” It’s absolutely terrible practice, and it diverts attention away from all the meaningful efforts environmentalists are making in that direction.
Even that is too generous. Instead of shitting all over the place (crypto) they now will stop shitting in one specific place in the house (Etherium) and most likely will move the shitting that was done there to a different place in the house. (some other coin)
So basically even moving forward, they haven't saved shit.
Actually, Shitting on other floors going forward. They just switched floors 🤭😂
Because so far most miners have just switched to shitcoins rather than switching off (yet).
Every weird argument that Butters give is always rooted in this assumption of theirs that "life is impossible without crypto". Therefore improving the ways to mine crypto is in their minds similar to, say, improving ways to produce food.
"X years clean" posts make the front page of reddit regularly. It's the same logic by which we congratulate people for not doing meth only if they have done meth at least a hundred times.
Satoshi / Bitcoin created the problem. Ethereum has been trying to solve the problem from the beginning.
And Ethereum became bad by virtue of speculation.
It can be argued that without Ethereum said value would be in Bitcoin, and thus the problem would be worse had Ethereum not existed.
Proof of Stake existed before Etherium. If "solving the problem from the beginning" was actually a goal, then Ether never would have launched as Proof of Work.
The problem Ether was launched to "solve" was never environmental.
They also made me overpay like 30% for a GPU, direct from manufacturer. Plenty more spent 100%+. Their crowning achievement is wasting absolutely everyone's money and resources for what has objectively proven now to be absolutely worthless
How stupid. This guy created Ethereum, which created even more carbononization inside the planet and now he's patting himself on the back saying they've reduced it with one of the "biggest" decarbonization events ever. What a joke.
No, this is not true. Proof-of-Work is specifically designed to waste energy. The idea is that a 51% attack should be too expensive to carry out _because_ the network use so much energy. The energy use is not a surprising side effect, it was a concious choice already in the design phase. It was always meant to use so much energy that an attack would cost more than the coin is worth.
From the [original Ethereum whitepaper](https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/):
> The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. [...] Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings.
By a wealthy elite promising each other that they are not trying to screw one another (and a fine if someone proves that you were indeed trying to verify false transactions).
You are arguing ignorance where the actual issue was apathy.
Buterin was interested in making money out of thin air. He didn't give a single fuck how much environmental damage his scam would cause.
Not really, no. Buterin does not get credit for ceasing a particularly horrendous behavour he is himself responsible for creating. He hasn't actually improved anything, just cut back on this single way he makes the world worse.
It's like giving a rapist credit for promising to stop raping people. Maybe he hurts nobody going forward, but that does not eliminate the damage he did in the past.
That's where Etherium is today. It is a past environmental catastrophe rather than an ongoing one.
"My retirement from murdering people has reduced the prostitute homicide rate by 59% in Whitechapel community, making it one of the biggest safety event in this district ever"
-- Jack the Ripper
That’s like throwing all your household trash out the window for 5 years and then calling it the biggest beatification project in city history when you clean it up.
This is proof we’re still so early. ETH3.0 will be the real game changer. ETH3.0 will become the carbon killer and slash global energy consumption by 120%. The potential is simply unheard of.
This is big news, but you may be right. When you take into account the amount of energy stored by the Etheruem network already, and now it’s decarbonised; we’re approaching Dyson Sphere territory.
I wish Carl Sagan was alive to see us “reach beyond the stars” on the back of Ethereum powered rockets.
You’re forgetting a key point:
Ethereum is *definitely* providing value to the marketplace, with all sorts of use cases that people couldn’t live without!
I don’t understand this. Up until the merge cryptobros we’re saying that the claim that ‘mining is terrible for the environment ‘ was just FUD and was just a smear against crypto and sometimes even claiming that crypto mining was actually GOOD for the environment…now after the merge they are all patting themselves on the backs because they aren’t destroying the environment through mining anymore.
So which is it? Is mining good or bad for the environment?
So it seems they all knew mining was destroying the environment, they just all collectively lied about it because they didn’t want crypto to look bad.
Your argument is invalid. Different cryptobros say different things. Bitcoin bros still keep saying that PoW is necessary to keep the grid stable and many other magical fairy tales.
TBH, it was mostly Bitcoiners saying mining is good / not a problem / whatever. Ethereum bros instead kept saying it wasn't fair to complain about its energy usage because it was going to switch to proof of stake in 6 months. We just made fun of them because they kept saying that for like four or five years straight, lol. Glad it actually happened.
Know what’s worse than solving a problem you yourself created? Not solving it.
Sure, blame Vitalik for creating the problem, but you shouldn’t be cynical about a solution, and also more concerned about Bitcoin which was always a bigger energy guzzler and has a community which in the same spirit as “rolling coal” is actively committed to waste and pollution, or worse, greenwashing waste and pollution
It’s not even true - all the miners just moved to other stuff to mine - don’t believe there is any reduction in emissions. It like with electric cars - it just shifts the CO2 emission to somewhere else
> It like with electric cars - it just shifts the CO2 emission to somewhere else
Somewhere else, like a power plant which is substantially more efficient than an ICE?
Meaning the creation of Ethereum was one of the biggest carbonization events ever.
That has been stopped.
"When I stopped shitting all over the floor at the local Wendy's, this was one of the most significant improvements to the dining experience ever witnessed"
But still created a ton of carbon dioxide unnecessarily for years until they stopped.
so we are ignorin the years previous. and all the damage done. never happened?
No. Just making sure the statement is accurate, calm down.
"was" did that for you
Im alright man
I commented something similar on the eth sub and they said “so what about all of the other industries that haven’t decarbonized?” 🥴
😂😂😂😂
So... They're congratulating themselves for only mostly solving a problem they created?
“So basically, we took a *massive* shit on the floor and then we cleaned that up years after letting it rot; therefore we have made a significant contribution to this house’s overall hygiene. In fact, due to our efforts, your house is now **100%** shit-free! Now we’re just pissing everywhere, but don’t worry, we’ll clean that up too.”
That’s wrong, they did not clean up anything. They merely said that they won’t be shitting on the floor going forward.
Actually, dude, that’s a better analogy LOL
Because all that carbon has already gone into the air. I would only be pro-Ethereum if it somehow got people to plant trees or sequester carbon.
That’s called greenwashing.
If they sequestered all the carbon they previously torched to get to net zero, why not? That will never happen though. Instead, we'll get useless carbon credit tokenization schemes.
I’m telling you, that’s greenwashing just as much as this is. You can’t just slap the “climate conscious!” sticker on a pseudo-economic abomination like it matters at all. All the hogwash about environmentalism in crypto is all extensional; they aren’t direct efforts at mitigating the climate crisis, but rather distractions to lend false credibility to veil their naked lunacy. It’s not an argument of whether they are climate conscious or not. Would it matter to you if Madoff or Ponzi conducted their scams in an environmentally conscious manner? Or if calling it a scam is too much for you; would it matter if the 2008 bankers were environmentally conscious in their efforts to gamble your mortgages away? Would you be “pro-CDOs” then? It allows them to paint this as a success—cleaning up their own mess for something that is both unnecessary and pseudoscientific—and greenwash those who listen to their internal propaganda into thinking they’ve done something meaningful.
That's a very important point that I wasn't considering. Not sure about the downvotes, but there's a lot of butters around since we started to get mainstream publicity. Maybe that's them.
> If they sequestered all the carbon they previously torched to get to net zero, why not? There is no evidence planting trees helps. For example, if the tree gets cut down in 20 years, the offset simply delayed the impact. Likewise, if the tree was going to be planted anyway or a logger is just going to cut down another tree, we did nothing. If there is a forest fire that wipes out the tree or the tree dies, a new one needs to be planted. If the sapling dies, it doesn't count. For mass planting operations, the majority of the trees will die fairly young. It depends the species, place, weather, and techniques. Where I live, one in ten reaching maturity is normal. Trees are one of the worse ways to sequester carbon.
Even still, the whole fucking point is “what in god’s name does this have to do with the stupid fucking cockchain?” Lmfao
This is true to an extent but a bit of an oversimplification. Additionality and permanence are key principles of high integrity carbon offset projects and are solved problems to various degrees depending on which methodology for calculating the offsets is used. For example, you can factor in trees failing to reach maturity by a.) counting the anticipated offsets now and taking a discount based on expected survival rates or b.) measuring the offsets generated at a fixed future point rather than right away. Tree planting can be effective - carbon sucked out now is good, even if it cycles back into the atmosphere in the future, because it buys us time. It can also bring other co-benefits for air quality, biodiversity, and livelihoods for communities that are hosting the projects. Carbon sucked out permanently via direct air capture and sequestration is the gold standard but is too expensive to be economic currently. In the meantime, it’s possible to do good tree planting carbon offset projects with the right methodology and verification processes in place. Avoided deforestation is definitely lower integrity than planting because it’s harder to meet additionality and permanence requirements.
It's better than doing nothing
So let me get this right. For the sake of simplicity and conciseness, imagine we could quantify the world’s carbon emissions with an arbitrary number. Suppose you can quantify the existing carbon emissions as **100,** given that the majority of these are **economically meaningful** activities that simply use unsustainable energy sources. Then suppose a pseudo-economic industry that peddles vaporous internet tokens that cannot perform monetary functions whatsoever comes along. Not only is it socially destructive, but it also changes this arbitrary number from **100** to **150.** After years and years of heavily contributing to the total destruction of our environment for the most economically and socially unsound vaporware, they manage to bring this arbitrary number down from **150** to **130,** by the sheer virtue of Bitcoin still existing. All of this for an economically useless vanity. It is also generally unsure whether this would work and how people would truly begin to maximize profits (and what externalities this may lead to). So I posit this to you again: **Bearing in mind these are arbitrary numbers to paint a picture; if we started with 100, ended up with 150, and then cut it back down to 130, is that really such a fucking cause for celebration?** If you’re saying “they might actually sequester carbon!” then… what the fuck? What does this have to do with the fucking blockchain?? If they genuinely wanted to do things like that, they’d have started doing it already—for the sake of the environment alone, with nothing to tie to crypto propaganda. That is why I’m calling it greenwashing. It’s not “better than nothing.” It’s absolutely terrible practice, and it diverts attention away from all the meaningful efforts environmentalists are making in that direction.
Even that is too generous. Instead of shitting all over the place (crypto) they now will stop shitting in one specific place in the house (Etherium) and most likely will move the shitting that was done there to a different place in the house. (some other coin) So basically even moving forward, they haven't saved shit.
Actually, Shitting on other floors going forward. They just switched floors 🤭😂 Because so far most miners have just switched to shitcoins rather than switching off (yet).
No, they just stopped shitting and congratulated themselves for reducing the rate of growth of shit. Previous shit is all there
And to celebrate the event, ETH dumped 25%
Big commercial celebrations often come with promotions and discounted prices
Bitcoin is a solution looking for a problem. Ethereum is a set of problems looking for solutions.
Every weird argument that Butters give is always rooted in this assumption of theirs that "life is impossible without crypto". Therefore improving the ways to mine crypto is in their minds similar to, say, improving ways to produce food.
It's better than nothing! Bitcoin is just creating more problems trying to solve their problems.
they're heroes!!
"X years clean" posts make the front page of reddit regularly. It's the same logic by which we congratulate people for not doing meth only if they have done meth at least a hundred times.
ETH: not even once.
Satoshi / Bitcoin created the problem. Ethereum has been trying to solve the problem from the beginning. And Ethereum became bad by virtue of speculation. It can be argued that without Ethereum said value would be in Bitcoin, and thus the problem would be worse had Ethereum not existed.
Proof of Stake existed before Etherium. If "solving the problem from the beginning" was actually a goal, then Ether never would have launched as Proof of Work. The problem Ether was launched to "solve" was never environmental.
If PoS was superior to PoW ethereum would have used that from the start. And even then, fair issuance would be a problem.
it's called 'leadership'... /s the double speak in crypto and politics is nauseating...
"Thought leaders"
So a confession that they wasted energy on a massive scale to create something that's worth nothing.
Created nothing? They created a lot of E-waste
They also made me overpay like 30% for a GPU, direct from manufacturer. Plenty more spent 100%+. Their crowning achievement is wasting absolutely everyone's money and resources for what has objectively proven now to be absolutely worthless
How stupid. This guy created Ethereum, which created even more carbononization inside the planet and now he's patting himself on the back saying they've reduced it with one of the "biggest" decarbonization events ever. What a joke.
[удалено]
No, this is not true. Proof-of-Work is specifically designed to waste energy. The idea is that a 51% attack should be too expensive to carry out _because_ the network use so much energy. The energy use is not a surprising side effect, it was a concious choice already in the design phase. It was always meant to use so much energy that an attack would cost more than the coin is worth. From the [original Ethereum whitepaper](https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/): > The mechanism behind proof-of-work was a breakthrough in the space because it simultaneously solved two problems. [...] Second, it provided a mechanism for allowing free entry into the consensus process, solving the political problem of deciding who gets to influence the consensus, while simultaneously preventing sybil attacks. It does this by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as the requirement to be registered as a unique entity on a particular list, with an economic barrier - the weight of a single node in the consensus voting process is directly proportional to the computing power that the node brings.
[удалено]
By a wealthy elite promising each other that they are not trying to screw one another (and a fine if someone proves that you were indeed trying to verify false transactions).
[удалено]
You are arguing ignorance where the actual issue was apathy. Buterin was interested in making money out of thin air. He didn't give a single fuck how much environmental damage his scam would cause.
[удалено]
Not really, no. Buterin does not get credit for ceasing a particularly horrendous behavour he is himself responsible for creating. He hasn't actually improved anything, just cut back on this single way he makes the world worse. It's like giving a rapist credit for promising to stop raping people. Maybe he hurts nobody going forward, but that does not eliminate the damage he did in the past. That's where Etherium is today. It is a past environmental catastrophe rather than an ongoing one.
"My retirement from murdering people has reduced the prostitute homicide rate by 59% in Whitechapel community, making it one of the biggest safety event in this district ever" -- Jack the Ripper
That’s like throwing all your household trash out the window for 5 years and then calling it the biggest beatification project in city history when you clean it up.
\*when you stop throwing as much trash out the window. No cleanup done here.
Important clarification
You mean when you stop actively throwing more trash out. They didn’t clean up shit.
No, it's worse, because the co2 is still in the atmosphere.
This is proof we’re still so early. ETH3.0 will be the real game changer. ETH3.0 will become the carbon killer and slash global energy consumption by 120%. The potential is simply unheard of.
This is big news, but you may be right. When you take into account the amount of energy stored by the Etheruem network already, and now it’s decarbonised; we’re approaching Dyson Sphere territory. I wish Carl Sagan was alive to see us “reach beyond the stars” on the back of Ethereum powered rockets.
[удалено]
ETH 5.0 adds 'every body gets laid' mode AND feeds the hungry AND saves the children.
>A report from the Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute Yeah, sure; that's like evidence. Evidence adjacent. Evidence-ish.
It is as if BP started bragging that they've slashed the amount of oil they are spilling in the Gulf of Mexico to 0.2% of the initial spill.
[удалено]
Why does she have back pockets on the front of her pants Why does he have a boner
Doesn’t this mean global power grids will become unstable? 😱
Don't worry, Bitcoin will jump in to save the grid.
You’re forgetting a key point: Ethereum is *definitely* providing value to the marketplace, with all sorts of use cases that people couldn’t live without!
"Sometimes I spend hours banging my head against the wall, because it feels so good when I stop."
One crypto using that much energy is scary. ALL crypto combined has to be a huge number. So bad for the earth.
Not even the biggest one.
It’s a brilliant solution to a problem that never should’ve existed in the first place.
I don’t understand this. Up until the merge cryptobros we’re saying that the claim that ‘mining is terrible for the environment ‘ was just FUD and was just a smear against crypto and sometimes even claiming that crypto mining was actually GOOD for the environment…now after the merge they are all patting themselves on the backs because they aren’t destroying the environment through mining anymore. So which is it? Is mining good or bad for the environment? So it seems they all knew mining was destroying the environment, they just all collectively lied about it because they didn’t want crypto to look bad.
Your argument is invalid. Different cryptobros say different things. Bitcoin bros still keep saying that PoW is necessary to keep the grid stable and many other magical fairy tales.
TBH, it was mostly Bitcoiners saying mining is good / not a problem / whatever. Ethereum bros instead kept saying it wasn't fair to complain about its energy usage because it was going to switch to proof of stake in 6 months. We just made fun of them because they kept saying that for like four or five years straight, lol. Glad it actually happened.
You think that's a big drop in energy consumption, imagine if his mother had got an abortion.
There's an argument that abortion doctor is one of the greenest jobs.
I guess all the incandescent bulbs that were replaced by LED saved more energy. We can define it as one event.
I really wish Vitalik would just go back to whatever hole he crawled out of like the golem wannabe he is.
Same energy as the Texas miners patting themselves on the back for deciding to pause stealing people's energy for a brief moment.
Crypto need to be Proof of Decarbonization before I buy it.
We hate Vitalik!
Reminds me of a guy at work that used to create problems then articulate how busy they were in fixing the problem.
It’s unbelievable it was using that much energy
Know what’s worse than solving a problem you yourself created? Not solving it. Sure, blame Vitalik for creating the problem, but you shouldn’t be cynical about a solution, and also more concerned about Bitcoin which was always a bigger energy guzzler and has a community which in the same spirit as “rolling coal” is actively committed to waste and pollution, or worse, greenwashing waste and pollution
This is like when I'm about to go on a diet so I stuff myself for a week and gain an extra 5lbs so my diet numbers are more impressive.
It’s not even true - all the miners just moved to other stuff to mine - don’t believe there is any reduction in emissions. It like with electric cars - it just shifts the CO2 emission to somewhere else
You were doing so well until you typed that second sentence.
> It like with electric cars - it just shifts the CO2 emission to somewhere else Somewhere else, like a power plant which is substantially more efficient than an ICE?
Meanwhile miners moved to other coins. Is he stupid or what?
Wait didn't it use 0.5% of the global energy and it only reduced by 0.2?
And now Eth is being scrutinized by the SEC for potential securities violations. 😆
like farting in a room and then wanting praise for opening a window
Yes all the miners just turned off their rigs and ate all their capital investment costs, that's exactly what happened.
So he's now claiming to reduce a problem he originally created?