Oh no, I can't google things.

https://solana.com/news/solanas-energy-use-report-march-2022

First, that's a random chain nobody cares about that recently had a massive controversy of them trying to steal a user's fake internet "money".

Second, i don't trust their numbers - how could they possibly know what type of electricity is used by their validators?

Third - even if we assume those numbers are true, I don't see a comparison with Stripe's per transaction CO2 emissions.

> recently had a massive controversy of them trying to steal a user's fake internet "money".

This is like saying that Ethereum stole from AnubisDAO contributors.

> Second, i don't trust their numbers - how could they possibly know what type of electricity is used by their validators?

I think most of the validators are hosted at Equinix through a deal negotiated by the Solana Foundation, but not all of them.

> Third - even if we assume those numbers are true, I don't see a comparison with Stripe's per transaction CO2 emissions.

If you can find any published numbers on this from Stripe (or any other Ruby shop) that would be great.

So how can you possibly say "The transaction would also cost less energy than it did through Stripe" if you have no idea how much energy a traditional transaction takes?

The linked page includes the energy cost of a Google search. I made an informed guess that operations done infrequently and deliberately written in extremely power-inefficient ways cost at least that much.

And what did you base that off of? Do you know the efficiency of a Stripe transaction, compared to a Google search? And what does "a Google search" even entail? How far down does it go? Where did that number come from?

How could you possibly compare the two?

At best, you're making a guess (I wouldn't exactly call it "informed") based on some randomly sourced data on a blog, which uses another blog for its source, which uses a third blog.