@mark
We're not using telegram for a lot of reasons, thanks for the offer though. As organization we are in touch with the scientific community and try to use that as a way to learn about the topic. Have a nice day!
@raucao

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark The general "scientific community" has no special expertise over this topic whatsoever. The creators and contributors of bitcoin are literally their own scientific community, as you would know if you had looked even a little bit into the computer science, theoretical underpinnings, and ongoing protocol improvements of bitcoin.

@raucao
It is not the general "scientific community" we are talking about those who specifically research the sustainability of blockchain technology e.g. at the Wuppertal Institute. It is uncommon that you talk about the scientific community as a whole when referring to them. You usually talk about the the researchers of the specific topic you're discussing.
@mark

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Still no mention of specific research or falsifiable results/publications.

This is going nowhere, if you keep handwaving about the secret science that gives you special analytical abilities (which so far have proven rather misguided).

@raucao
We use to talk to researchers directly to understand things, rather than just reading them and increasing the chances of misunderstanding. They however have published a lot of stuff. One example is here: wupperinst.org/en/a/wi/a/s/ad/
@mark

Follow

@raucao @mark
And just to remind you, besides a rather controversial YouTube Video you haven't proposed any sources yourself, while claiming we would be handwaving and "questioning" our competence to think at the same time. This conversation is rather unpleasant, and we will not participate anymore as it will continue this way.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark I have provided actual arguments and examples. "We're talking to people" is not how science works.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Also, if you can address actual points brought forward by Lyn in the video, then do it. Saying the entire debate is "controversial" is a complete cop-out.

You weren't able to refute my arguments about your claims of economic control and reverted to "we hear the ecological impact is too high", without bringing forward any actual arguments for me to falsify. Hence my recommendation for you to watch the debate, since you might actually learn a thing or two.

Good bye.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Climate Justice Global

Welcome to this official Fediverse instance for climate justice groups.

There is also: climatejustice.social also for individual activists