Skip to main content

Why bother using blockchain for metaverse worlds when decentralization is possible without it?

Decentralization is possible without using blockchain. Some examples of this are Diaspora and Mastodon, both of which are federated decentralized networks that do not use a blockchain. 

In that case, why is there a need to use blockchain for any metaverse world, especially when the environmental reputational risks are so high? In many areas of the world, the electric grid is not decarbonized yet. The amount of power drawn for blockchain computation is high. In fact, in areas where electricity is cheap enough to draw blockchain miners, this tends to be heavily based on fossil fuels. So you could say that the blockchain is currently largely powered by coal and other fossil fuels.

So again, why bother using blockchain? 

There are other examples of the buying and selling of digital property without using blockchain technology, for example domain name trading.

If we as humans are truly to be future-conscious, blockchain technology cannot be a part of our future due to its emissions-heavy nature. If we can decarbonize the electricity grid this is a possible solution (still computationally inefficient compared to other transactions), but we are not there yet. That's a bit like saying that aluminium smelters who draw lots of electricity will be eco-friendly when we decarbonize the electricity grid. This may well be true, but in the meantime you have an industry heavily dependent on use of fossil fuels and all of the emissions consequences of this.

I'm not against the trading of digital property, or against decentralization. But if we are to limit emissions then I believe we cannot in all conscience use blockchain technology as it currently stands: a technology dependent on the inefficient consumption of fossil fuels.

Popular posts from this blog

Why Solar Geoengineering is a Bad Idea: 3 reasons understandable to both the general and scientific communities

Solar geoengineering is the idea of limiting the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth, with the aim of limiting global warming. Here I will show 3 reasons why it's a really bad idea: 1. Photosynthesis requires sunlight, don't limit it - it's one of the few things pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere Photosynthesis is one of the very few ways we have to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. As an added bonus it's done automatically by plants, requiring no effort on our part. It requires light in order to work. To do it, plants take in sunlight, carbon dioxide and water, and they produce oxygen. These plants are literally removing carbon dioxide from our atmosphere, but they require light for it to work.  We should not do anything that could possibly limit the amount of photosynthesis occurring; limiting the amount of light hitting the planet is likely to decrease photosynthesis.  2. We should not be limiting the generation of solar power Solar electri...
Read more

How to center images horizontally using Grav

I've been playing around a bit with Grav. I was posing the question to myself: for the relatively simple use-cases I'm dealing with, could it possibly work for my purposes as an alternative to ProcessWire?  The problem I was initially dismayed to find that Grav uses Markdown as its editor, which does not offer native support for horizontal centering of anything (text or images). However, Grav offers some tweaks that help make it easier to do specific things you might commonly want to do. I tried writing a sample article, and I found that one of the hardest things to do was to center an image horizontally. And horizontal centering of images is something I would typically do in most of the articles I would write. So the lack of easy horizontal centering is a highly significant drawback IMHO (most people do want to center images in an article!) However, this issue is made up for by other things in Grav: the relative speed, ease and flexibility of custom theming and built-in suppor...
Read more

Good and bad uses of AI as it currently stands

The good Recently, the Photos app on my Android phone automatically curated some of my photos into a "highlights" album for me. I thought this was a fantastic idea. I love this use of AI - it does something quickly and easily that would otherwise take a lot of human time.  The only downside was that the AI included a close-up pic I'd taken of a spot on the skin behind my husband's ear so he could see it. Now, if this AI had instead been for a self-driving car, then too bad, we likely would've had a terrible wreck at this point - endangering myself, any passengers, and other drivers on the road. But since this application of AI for photo selection did not have any life-threatening consequences, I was all for it. The bad I've said before, and I'll say it again, that AI as it currently stands should not be used for self-driving purposes and I have explained clearly why. Indeed, I believe that AI should not be used for any purpose that may have life-threaten...
Read more

About Me

My photo
Vera
I'm a wife and mother. I don't have any formal computer science qualifications, or any religious qualifications. I have a PhD in biochemistry. This photo is of me, but is confusing for AI.