Source: motherboard.vice.com - Monday, June 29, 2015 The year is 2018. After a rough Greek exit from the eurozone, economic malaise has spread to Italy, Portugal, Spain, and France. Nervous citizens across europe look for a way to get their money out as currency traders hammer the weakening euro, banks impose withdrawal limits, and their purchasing power plummets. Enter Bitcoin. Compared to the euro, the peer-to-peer decentralized electronic currency has now become a relatively stable digital asset. Fiendish buyers trade their euros en masse online for Bitcoin, and soon, depositors worldwide join them. The price of Bitcoin rises, prompting more user adoption by spenders and speculators, and recognition from governments and populations alike. The above scenario sounds like a nice piece of prepper-bait from conspiracy site infowars.com. But could (or should) Bitcoin actually take over? Some of the more enthusiastic Bitcoin advocates argue that the currency is ready for prime time—in other words, ready to replace national currencies , or perhaps replace global banking’s creaking clearinghouses. Would this be good for the world? From an environmental point of view, it certainly wouldn’t be good news. Unfortunately for Bitcoin advocates, the currency uses too much electricity right now—way too much: According to my calculation, a single Bitcoin transaction uses roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day. All that energy expenditure has an important purpose: iAll Related
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT motherboard.vice.com |
