4 ms·
You could say that to GP who just dismissed a published study without actually taking on any of the claims made therein.
by gitrog 6y ago
You could say that to GP who just dismissed a published study without actually taking on any of the claims made therein.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoThey questioned the methodology specifically. So it's not just an assertion.
- tekknik 6y ago...of a published study. The only reason people are defending GP now is because the subject is BTC.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoJust because it's a published study does not mean it's infallible. Please see my reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26342411
- tekknik 6y agoYour counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Power transmission is a thing (California does it) and if we weren’t using the power to mine BTC it could be used to power other things. Again, people are only arguing for BTC on this site because it’s hacker news, nothing else.
- read_if_gay_ 6y ago> Your counter is just as flawed as you have no way to verify any miners are using renewables. Then any "published study" on this topic is automatically going to be flawed as well?
- tekknik 6y agoMore like since renewables are not commonplace and it costs money to move its easier to believe they are not using renewables.
- read_if_gay_ 6y agoYou can of course believe whatever seems easy to you, but you do realize that I linked to a published study that says miners are using renewables far more than the US does on average, don't you?
- tekknik 6y ago32% of miners use renewables. That’s not even a majority amongst miners.