People are the problem themselves. The world has been the hottest this year while bitcoin miners are producing less carbon dioxide than what critics depicted about bitcoin in comparison with the total gases release to the environment that can cause global warming from tiger human activities. The reason the world is getting warmer day after day is not because of bitcoin mining but because of how the world are generating electricity, industrial chemicals released to the environment, deforestation and transport emissions of the gasses that can cause global warming.

Realistically speaking, it is troubling that people think that bitcoin mining has an impact on the environmental when in fact, the real environment impact of the energy it costs in printing the dollar, euros and yuan from is a cause for concern from physical materials. But then no one is saying anything about that. Everyone(Fed) is turned to bitcoin, the orphaned child with no one to speak for her.  If you doubt this and want to know more, read this article - Here’s the one currency worse for the environment than bitcoin
Less and less bitcoin is being mined per day but more energy is expended in mining gold, silver and other precious metals including those of the already mentioned currencies.

What we think about what? ChatGPT? It is impressive!

Tbh, it sounds like chatgpt or any AI text when you read it. I felt it was AI generated when I read it too so you should take it easy with the all caps. Also, The issues mentioned in OP have been discussed here on the forum thousands of times — Bitcoin is not scalable (yet) and transaction fees are on the high side and some times, the highest.

You should add more flow to your content next time so that it wouldn't be flagged easily as an AI generated content.

I admit the transaction issues arise due to limitations, and transaction fees become high when the network is congested. But the environmental issue was just raised by haters. There are a lot of power consumption sectors where no one is talking, even though they pollute the environment. But they talk about Bitcoin, which uses less power and causes less environmental pollution. However, it would be solved by using renewable power sources, which is happening. But developers should find a solution for the transaction issue outside of the lightning network. Due to the complex system, not many consumers want to use the Bitcoin lightning network.

But isn't it now some way better than it was back then, i don't think scalability should be a thing of problem anymore like before when theres bitcoin lightning network that deals and handles such, in case you don't know.



you're just taking yourself a bit backward on what has already been dealt with, almost eevryone knows about this, then why bringing it up again, thortology?.


Bitcoin is not environmentally unfriendly on us, read more from this.

debunking bitcoin energy in mining bitcoin by fillippone
https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/5325350.msg56613804#msg56613804

If you want to have faster transaction speed, use altcoins but their blockchains are smaller in total hash rates or more vulnerable to smart contract exploitations.

If you want security, use Bitcoin and accept slower transaction time but let's say you will surely get more security for your on-chain transactions. Asking Bitcoin developers to change the protocol, community to vote yes on it, to make Bitcoin blockchain less secured like altcoin blockchains is bad proposal.

Bitcoin Mining Industry consumes less energy than other industries and it uses more renewable energy resources than other industries and nations too.

If anyone tell you Bitcoin mining industry has a big threat for global environment, they tell you fud.

Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument
https://endthefud.org/energy

BTC tx's are not instant, but it is safe. BTC blocks are found ~ 10 minutes on average and once a block has at least 1 confirmation it becomes irreversible, however in other networks or centralized systems that are almost instant, tx's remain reversible after a very long time, and those who control such networks can reverse tx's and confiscate funds.
The BTC community is not exploring an option like this, BTC would never switch from pow to pos.

i see many people promoting LN without understanding LN..
LN is not a solution. even the LN devs admit to its flaws, bugs and issues.

LN payments are not even the same(unsettled and can be replaced/lost/tricked, dropped) as bitcoin unconfirmed transactions. LN payments are far more easily(unsettled and can be replaced/lost/tricked, dropped) than unconfirmed bitcoin transactions that relay around the actual bitcoin network

bitcoin USED TO (before RBF) be used where people could make unconfirmed payments to someone on the bitcoin network and it was deemed as a payment waiting to be settled in next 10mins-hour(but RBF made onchain unconfirmed payments less trusted than previously (purposefully))
LN system is unconfirmed payments that MIGHT settle in 1 month-1 year. (co-operative close session)

LN liquidity has sat at around 5000btc for years... now compare that to blackrock that went from 100btc to 87,000 btc in a month
more people prefer to play with shares than msats

LN's flaws have caused it to not adopt huge userbase of self controlled funding allocation.. the node count and liquidity numbers have not shown progressive growth in years, instead its the same big hub businesses sitting idle with THEIR locked value offering channel rented balance to its customers. thus not really a network of individual control of real bitcoin value

remember. if your not the keyholder of the funding lock of coins confirmed on the bitcoin network... they are not your coins
majority of LN users are not people that carry around a fullnode. they are renters of hub services 'inbound balance' which is what is deemed IOU unsettled balance, rather then value owned/given to the user

not true
LN allows the ability to set up channels unfunded. and users given "inbound balance" not funded/controlled by the user
(this is a security risk for those unaware of the flaws of LN that are recruited into using it but not realise what they are getting)
(though some advocates call it a 'rented channel' feature rather then a flaw.. (they dont want people talking about how such can be abused))

yes smarter people can honourably lock up their own coin and create a channel and then hope said channel has a good cheap path to all possible destinations it wants. but usually find out they need to open 3-4 channels to get best chance of routing. and best chance of low fee paths
whereby when locking coins to use LN does come with onchain fee's thus they have to pre-plan spending expectations of long term locks to make it a viable method to save on fee's.. EG you cant jsut lock make a payment and unlock to save on fee's you actually end up paying 2x-4x .. instead you need to plan to lock, negotiate the best positioned/ propositioned partner. and stay with them for a period of atleast several payment needs just to break even compared to onchain fees

LN also suffers the liquidity bottleneck problem where 'payment success' rates are not guaranteed and only small amounts have higher chance, so its not even suitable for all people even if the LN network was to act honourably

---

i do stil laugh when i see LN advocates scream that bitcoin should not be used for peoples coffee/pizza payments (values that could then be consolidated and moved on). but also state that junk meme transactions leaving 330sat unspendable sat utxo's should not be stopped from being used on the bitcoin network. its hilarious to watch them promote they want bitcoin to be annoying to use for actual spending of goods and services..  just to promote their other networks as solutions to the annoyances they want to create for bitcoiners, whereby their prefered subnetwork has more flaws and issues