Apple has threatened to remove Amphetamine from the App Store

Well, I can’t help questioning the “non-violent” part: it takes incredible amounts of energy to maintain that is quite literally taken away from other - possibly more helpful at social scale - purposes.

not to mention the environmental impact

I think we use a different definition of violence.

Yet another reason to implement a Carbon Tax & Dividend [0] ASAP. There's certainly an argument that the intentional waste of Proof of Work is more efficient than the overhead of existing banks; but I suspect the whole crypto world would migrate to Proof of Stake if forced to pay for their externalities. As is it, they simply borrow against the planetary credit card (probably at a rate of ~100x interest), sticking future generations with the bill for their "innovation".

[0] https://clcouncil.org/economists-statement/

Yeah, you use the one that fits your narrative, and it works wonders until you try to pass it off to people who haven't latched onto that narrative, and then you come to a crossroads, do you summarily discount their perspective and go on your merry way unfazed and unchanged, or do you reconcile this new perspective and potentially confront issues with your narrative.

I don't know you but based on that facile response, I'm guessing you're more down for the former - considering the deleterious externalities of bitcoin mining at scale are pretty well known.

Uhhh I'm not particularly a fan of Bitcoin, but implying that this is anything like violence is absurd. I gotta go against the trend of anything you don't like that could conceivably lead to somebody being harmed somehow is the same thing as actual violence.

It's not really that absurd, it's just not the most conventional definition. But I've heard it used that way before, especially in the context of philosophy

It's absurd in the sense that, if you accept that definition, then anything at all - taking any action or even taking no action at all - could be called violent, which makes the word meaningless. It points to an Orwellian level of thought control. If anything at all can be called violent by any level of tortured logic, then it's very good to be the person who decrees what actions will be considered to be violent and what will not.

Actually not at all: the elegant design of the difficulty adjustment means that even if the price of electricity went up or down by 10x, the rate of new Bitcoin issuance would change only temporarily.

I haven't met any Bitcoiner who wouldn't want CO2 emissions to be heavily taxed.

The problem with proof of stake that it decreases the security of the system. There are many ways to trade security of Bitcoin for convenience and extra features (Ethereum is a great example), but so far it seems that the market chooses security.

Well, no. This reaction is what people refer to when they say "loss of privilege" causes reactionary behavior.

If you think of it, even when you're not at the top of the food chain in your social order, being part of a dominant group makes your actions still causal to some sort of undesired or painful (and therefore violent) consequence to a member of the out-group. Nobody gets to decide what's good or bad, you just need to follow the chain of opportunity cost, determine who foots the bill and who reaps the interest.

It's indeed pretty hard to swallow...

I don't know, I think it's less absurd than your usage of the words "orwellian thought control" in the context of a different opinion on the definition of a word.

If I'm standing right next to the fuse box, and I see someone in the process of being electrocuted, isn't it violent to not flip the switch to save the person?