Bitcoin Forum

greenpeace now accepting bitcoin donations bitchez  ;)

http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/09/22/greenpeace-now-accepting-bitcoin-donations/

best news of the day  :)

Just donated .01 BTC  :D

The words "green" and "bitcoin" don't belong in the same sentence. Maybe they haven't realised the eye watering amount of electricity bitcoin guzzles up.

Greenpeace accept BTC -> Many Donations -> Greenpeace Dump BTC -> Market Crash -> Happyness  :-\

which payment-form does not need energy? you could shut down facebook first in that case...  :-X

when we think like that we would still be at $ 0,10

Very true, there's nothing green about Bitcoin's "Proof of Work".

The amount of electricity, heat, possibly toxic air, and harmful waste to the environemtn if the ASIC hardware are not disposed of properly, fairly contradicts everything that Greenpeace stands for.

But hey, they finally accept Bitcoin!  Another non profit, after the United Way started accepting Bitcoin last week.  Overall good news, acceptance wise, except for the whole irony thing.

Well i was ironic  :D
It a great thing for Greenpeace and for BTC Community  8)

Shell money: Free-diving for the shells off a bamboo raft :-)  

ah okay, no problem  ;)

But the cost is lower than minting US dollar.

you want to kill a bamboo tree? bastard  :P

Shhhhhh!!! 

-B-

Not so long ago that might be true, but not anymore with these mining operations:

http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/kplu/files/201404/040414TB_BitcoinMine.jpg

http://newsbtc.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/KNCMINER-DC-001.jpg

http://www.thecoinsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/39-GQF0zFa.jpg

http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/bitfury-asic-wall.jpg

If you include the cost of commercial and retail banking system and the US army to defend USD, the cost of BTC is still lower at present.

Is it just me that really doesn't like greenpeace? Half of the money doesn't even go to valid causes. I'll donate 1 satoshi >:).

I don't like greenpeace much either, a lot of these 'envirionmentalists' don't really campaign for real environmental issues, they're just lobbyists looking to play governments. If you see one advocating nuclear power chances are they're frauds because the amount of environmental damage those things cause is catastrophic never mind what we've seen happens when something goes wrong. Most of the time they're too busy bitching about some species of whale or some oil spill to care about things like gas infecting the water supply in America and power plants poisoning the air we breathe which I consider much more important issues.

Environmentalists are pussies too afraid to pick up a real fight so they go after issues no one cares about, I admit I actually used to be a bit of an environmentalist myself, but in the end I realised they like a lot of people in mainstream politics were looking to become career politicians rather than actually push for an issue they cared about so it was compromise, compromise, compromise.

As a child I've fantasized of scuba diving up to a Greenpeace ship under cover of darkness and planting a limpet mine.

You do realise nuclear power is a lot less destructive(much lowers than any of oil and coal) than what the public sentiment entice, right? Nuclear power seems to be the boogeyman  to people who are ignorant of its true cost and potential. There is plenty of  good reason that many environmentalist that understands nuclear energy suggest replacing fossil fuel power plant with next generation nuclear reactors(thorium, molten salt, fast breeder reactor etc) , at least until more sustainable energy source becomes mature enough to replace them.


Yes, I do think it is ironic that Greenpeace would accept bitcoin donation considering the relatively(compared to fiat at least) high environmental cost of bitcoin.

I support nuclear power as long as it is managed properly. It is much less destructive than fossil fuel.

Nuclear energy is great till inevitably corners are cut and it all goes wrong. Hint: think Fukushima.

That nightmare will never end. It cannot be simply contained like Chernobyl because it is next to the sea. The true cost of that is unmeasurable.

Ironically , Fukushima actually showed how safe modern day nuclear reactors could be.Considering the devastation wrought by the tsunami it is amazing that major nuclear incident was averted( even more so when people realised how the Japanese  were badly  prepared for such incident, and the authority's oversight with the Daichi plant).Not saying that it didn't went badly,just far less than the worst case scenario (and the internet hype).

Many people overlooked the fact that the  Onagawa nuclear power plant which stood closer to the epicentre of the quake and was also struck by the tsunami without suffering major damages ,which proves how safe  a well designed nuclear plant can be.

Besides ,next generation reactors (Thorium reactors e.g) designs are safe enough that catastrophic nuclear disaster(Chernobyl,Three Miles Island)is pretty much physically impossible.Unfortunately these research and projects are hampered by the public anathema towards nuclear power.

Not to mention on a per coin basis, bigger farms do not mean more damage to the environment.  If anything large farms can afford more efficient warehouses

I'm not a fan of GreenPeace but at least more support for Bitcoin, which is great!

Curious to see how much donations they will get in a month time with Bitcoin.