this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
176 points (99.4% liked)

Mildly Infuriating

35486 readers
687 users here now

Home to all things "Mildly Infuriating" Not infuriating, not enraging. Mildly Infuriating. All posts should reflect that.

I want my day mildly ruined, not completely ruined. Please remember to refrain from reposting old content. If you post a post from reddit it is good practice to include a link and credit the OP. I'm not about stealing content!

It's just good to get something in this website for casual viewing whilst refreshing original content is added overtime.


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means: -No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...


7. Content should match the theme of this community.


-Content should be Mildly infuriating.

-At this time we permit content that is infuriating until an infuriating community is made available.

...


8. Reposting of Reddit content is permitted, try to credit the OC.


-Please consider crediting the OC when reposting content. A name of the user or a link to the original post is sufficient.

...

...


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Lemmy Review

2.Lemmy Be Wholesome

3.Lemmy Shitpost

4.No Stupid Questions

5.You Should Know

6.Credible Defense


Reach out to LillianVS for inclusion on the sidebar.

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Yes, believable, from all the payment methods available, Greenpeace would choose the most fucking inefficient one, that wastes 700 kWh for a single transaction, that's 100 households!

top 25 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 46 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] Mora@pawb.social 13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

More likely every recipient gets their own address. An easy way to track who to send more of these mails to.

For a generic non personalized spam, IMHO it would be too expensive to generate and track millions of wallets. They could have placed a tracking pixel for much less (they didn't, the email is just plain text)

If then it's some targeted campaign, then yes, a dedicated BTC address makes sense as you said

[–] foggy@lemmy.world 38 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's fucking hysterical.

The balls on that guy to try to float Bitcoin as good for the environment.

He'd be better off impersonating OPEC.

[–] ATDA@lemmy.world 15 points 3 days ago

Sending my bank information with smoke signals from burning tires would be more eco...

[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Lol, 700kWh?

Crypto is very powerhungry, but it's not even close to that much much

[–] Magnetic_dud@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's a conservative estimate, it's even higher than that

Crypto-biased source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2021/08/18/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-use/ (you would expect they downplay the number)

You can just take a calculator and do by yourself the math from publicly available stats https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/

In the past 24 hours a block contains in average only 3500 transactions. Then that block needs to be validated by many other nodes in following calculations.

This is why it's the most inefficient payment method, very slow (only 3500 transactions in ten minutes instead of few seconds), expensive for the user (transfer fees are high) and power hungry

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

You have no idea what you're talking about, or else you're intentionally misleading people. Transferring Bitcoin in a single transaction takes nowhere near as much power as mining it. Yes, BTC is stupid and terrible for the environment, but you don't need to lie about the stats.

[–] hitwright@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/bitcoins-energy-usage-explained/

I mean by somewhat more up to date news it seems like he is correct. Bitcoin is wildly inefficient and basically non scaling.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

He is wildly incorrect because he phrased it in an intentionally deceitful manner. It does not require 700 kilowatt hours of energy to transfer one Bitcoin one time. The verbiage quote "single transaction", is the entire problem with OPs post.

[–] Magnetic_dud@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

please explain how to transfer bitcoin without mining a block, since the transactions are contained there.

You need to take the energy required to mine a block and validate it (a lot, could power a small town), then divide for the few transactions that could be included in just 1 mb.

They impose a size limit on the transactions that can be included, so even if tomorrow the transactions increase 10x, each block could contain the same limited number. Of course, if you only count the electricity used by your machine to send the transaction, it's just a few milliwatts. The problem is all the garbage calculations that need to be done to actually validate it.

[–] PlantDadManGuy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

You're arguing in bad faith and I'm not going to put up with your stupid straw man. Your statement was that it requires 700 kilowatt hours for a single transaction and that is blatantly false. You seem to ignore the obvious fact that Bitcoin can be transferred unlimited number of times and you do not have to re-mine the Bitcoin every single time you transfer it. As I said earlier, I already agree with you that Bitcoin sucks and you're wasting your time arguing with me over semantics.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You should censor the scam bitcoin address when you screenshot things like this.

[–] BakerBagel@midwest.social 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Why? So people won't send something to an address known to be a scam?

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes.

Not only can people be pretty dumb sometimes, once the screenshot is on the Internet, who knows where it might get reposted, potentially without context.

[–] Glitterbomb@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

I dont know. I agree with your point, but I think there's more benefits to keeping it intact. Maybe a middle ground is to mark up the photo with 'SCAM' 'DO NOT USE' etc, but leave the address intact. It's a phishing scam, so the address is the only info anyone has to potentially track them down. Maybe the address was used somewhere else, and there it can be tied to a person. The top comment here is someone already creeping on the address, which confirms:

  1. people do do this legwork in the crypto world, there's probably exchange admins and the like punching the address into their own databases and just not informing us because they didn't find anything.

  2. Noone has been dumb enough to send to that address yet, even before it was getting called out as a scam

If it's censored noone can do even a cursory glance into it

[–] kevincox@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 days ago

It honestly sounds more like someone convincing you that crypto is great than someone convincing you that Greenpeace is great.

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I wonder what fraction of Bitcoin mining energy comes from renewable sources. I bet it's teeny tiny.

[–] jurgel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

A quick google search said it was 52.4%

[–] AFKBRBChocolate@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

That seems high, though I guess if they're doing it in a state with high renewable energy, that's what they're using. It uses a crazy high amount of energy though.

[–] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)
[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Honestly the kinds of people who support Greenpeace are the ones who are likely gullible.

[–] finderscult@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

You're not wrong, greenpeace is oil funded and has always been employed to redirect environmentalism away from anything that actually hurts the oil industry.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago

Even more than that they seem to be more emotional than rational. They play on the doom and gloom heavily.

Its the same thing with politicians cutting down the rain forest to put up wind turbines