BITCOIN

bugbyte_2

darren232002 said:

160 pages and nobody has mentioned environment nonsense before....

1. Relative energy use, not absolute energy use. The current financial infrastructure uses far more energy gettign people in to an office than a few blockchains would.
2. Blockchain mining can be concentrated around key renewable energy resources as they are buyers of last resort, which are vital to build out the infrastructure for renewable energy. A wind farm in Antarctica isn't much use to anyone, but if you let that wind farm support a blockchain it incentivises renewable energy generation around the globe in places it would not normally be initiated. 
3. Civilizations are measured on the Kardashev scale - more energy use is not a bad thing.

to answer....

1. Only relative if you can define the energy use as a social requirement or if it actually does something. The current financial infrastructure provides jobs, allows the economy to run and underpins everyday 'life' so most people would consider the energy used getting people into office buildings and running computers so we can make transactions to be worthwhile. If you want to make the same argument for Bitcoin you would have to show that Bitcoin has a use worth its 13+ GW daily consumption. You go on to say in a subsequent post that bitcoin is not even a currency so what does it actually do to be worth 13GW? what problem does it solve? If the answer is 'none' then you cannot use the 'energy use is good for society' argument. The absolute energy use for running Bitcoin is huge and apart form making some people richer or poorer there is no social 'good'. If you want to change my mind you will have to give me a wide ranging, real and widely adopted use. There isn't one.

2. What % of bitcoin is mined by zero emission energy? And by zero I mean both in the production of the energy and construction of the plant and machinery to make the energy. None? If Bitcoin was mainly mined by people with their own wind farms then fair play, but I suspect that is not the case. I suspect most people that mine bitcoin are plugged into their national grids.

3. Are you really arguing that the more energy we use the more advanced we are, and excessive energy use is 'good'? Are you a climate denier? 

silvercue

Thrugelmir said:

silvercue said:

But then Gold has no real value other than the value we attribute to it.  There are similarities to be drawn there, yet gold has not collapsed (yet).  

Various industrial uses for gold include:

• Electronics and electronic components
• Computers, memory chips
• Dental fillings
• Medical treatments
• Space vehicles, space circuitry (conductor, connector, mechanical lubricant)
• Glass production

The price (therefore value) of gold is not driven by any of these applications.  Its value is based on the fact we have deemed it "precious".  The value comes from the the fact we make rings and ear rings out of it that could be made with vastly cheaper materials and as a store of value.  

If we only used gold for the items on that list it would be priced at a fraction of what it is now.   You know that as well as I do.  

User232002

bugbyte_2 said:

to answer....

1. Only relative if you can define the energy use as a social requirement or if it actually does something. The current financial infrastructure provides jobs, allows the economy to run and underpins everyday 'life' so most people would consider the energy used getting people into office buildings and running computers so we can make transactions to be worthwhile. 

Unfortunately, providing jobs is not a reason to keep things around. If it can do everything the alternative can and do it cheaper, it will just out compete. Most of us are now using self checkout and online banking because they are more efficient even though they have reduced the number of jobs available.

bugbyte_2 said:

 If you want to make the same argument for Bitcoin you would have to show that Bitcoin has a use worth its 13+ GW daily consumption. You go on to say in a subsequent post that bitcoin is not even a currency so what does it actually do to be worth 13GW? what problem does it solve? If the answer is 'none' then you cannot use the 'energy use is good for society' argument. The absolute energy use for running Bitcoin is huge and apart form making some people richer or poorer there is no social 'good'. If you want to change my mind you will have to give me a wide ranging, real and widely adopted use. There isn't one.

About 70% of the stuff that goes on in the normal financial system can be done faster, cheaper and in a more transparent way with Blockchains. But if you wish to focus on the elephant in the room - Bitcoin is a better gold than gold is on any objective evaluation of the metrics, and it can do all that whilst using 1/10th the energy used in gold extraction / storage / security. 

I'm really sick of this 'use case' rubbish too. Firstly, ask people in Turkey, Nigeria, Argentina or Venezuela what they think about having access to a store of value outside of your mismanaged currency. Secondly, in 2000 very few people foresaw what the internet would be used for in 2020. Imagine telling someone in 2000 that we need to build all these computers and use all this energy so that we can send messages, order food and watch videos - all stuff that already existed in 2000 in other formats.

bugbyte_2 said:

2. What % of bitcoin is mined by zero emission energy? And by zero I mean both in the production of the energy and construction of the plant and machinery to make the energy. None? If Bitcoin was mainly mined by people with their own wind farms then fair play, but I suspect that is not the case. I suspect most people that mine bitcoin are plugged into their national grids.

I mean, if you're going to define zero this way then literally nothing in the entire world is made with zero energy because, y'know, solar panels, wind farms and hydroelectric plants cost money/energy to build. 

Which, by the way, is kinda the point. Very few people invest in new energy production techniques because they are hilariously bad investments. Renewable energies need entities to invest in them and they need buyers of last resort; your solar panels produce energy at precisely the time when energy usage is the least - so a Bitcoin miner can buy the excess during the day and then switch off the farm at night when consumer demand is higher. These symbiotic relationships are vital to renewable energy providers.

55% of Bitcoin is mined with renewable sources by the way, which is far higher than many other normal usages of energy.

bugbyte_2 said:

3. Are you really arguing that the more energy we use the more advanced we are, and excessive energy use is 'good'? Are you a climate denier? 

"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." I am not a climate denier simply because I am not in favour of reducing energy usage.

We could scrap every car, plane, train, AC system, TV and computer in the world tomorrow but, whilst we would certainly be using far less energy, our lives would be considerably worse because of it. There is a reason I'd rather be on minimum wage in 2022 than be a king from 1522. If my children and their children are using less energy than we are using today then we have gone backwards as a civilization. 

Honestly, whilst climate change is obviously occurring and is clearly a problem, the attitude of most people in the west regarding climate change is overly simplistic, ignorant and bordering on virtue signalling. Buying a burger for $10 when its true environmental cost is multiples of that but justifying it because you recycle the packaging whilst blaming China & India for climate change isn't logical or fair. Again, incentives though - no politician wants to tell their electorate that the price of meat and yearly holidays is going to 5x because its bad for the environment.

silvercue

darren232002 said:
There is a reason I'd rather be on minimum wage in 2022 than be a king from 1522.

This is the part I can't agree with.  I would take King every day!  

Zola.

Blockchain Is NOT the Technology Behind Bitcoin

Out of the hype arose this fantastic saying, "Blockchain is the technology behind bitcoin," which is incorrect. Blockchain is one of the four foundational technologies (Blockchain, Proof-of-Work, P2P Network, and Cryptography) behind bitcoin, and it can’t stand alone. But that hasn’t stopped people from trying to sell it.

Today, “blockchain” is bitcoin with a haircut and suit that you parade in front of your board. It’s the ability to deliver a sanitised, clean, comfortable version of bitcoin, to people who are too terrified of truly disruptive technology. You enter this very strange world, where the words no longer mean anything.

Can you define "blockchain"? I think a few people in this room could probably define "blockchain." The real challenge would be: can you define "blockchain" in such a way that I can’t do search-and-replace with the word "database" and still make that sentence work? Because that’s the challenge: if what you’re doing is a database with signatures, it’s not interesting. It’s boring.”

Excerpt From: Andreas M. Antonopoulos. “The Internet of Money Volume Two”. 

Hexane

Scottex99 said:

Another Boomer. “Fiat is so reliable and controlled and safe but we really need to scale back on printing it when inflation gets to 9%.”

These guys will all be left behind 

I bet they are feeling very left behind right now, when several months ago you said (right here!) that BTC was going to $100,000 in "a few months". And since then all it has done is go sideways and also some downwards.

Still waiting... please buy some more of it. Kind of a bargain right now at just over $43,000

Scottex99

It will and I am. 

Cool

Adyinvestment

I found the below theory very interesting.

One of the largest financial companies in the world thinks countries will be forced to buy Bitcoin eventually.

Bitcoin adoption for countries is a 'high stakes' game and more governments will buy the cryptocurrency this year to stay competitive, Fidelity says | Currency News | Financial and Business News | Markets Insider (businessinsider.com)

That might bump the price up just a touch 

Zola.

Adyinvestment said:

I found the below theory very interesting.

One of the largest financial companies in the world thinks countries will be forced to buy Bitcoin eventually.

Bitcoin adoption for countries is a 'high stakes' game and more governments will buy the cryptocurrency this year to stay competitive, Fidelity says | Currency News | Financial and Business News | Markets Insider (businessinsider.com)

That might bump the price up just a touch 

Yep, game theory plays a massive part in the whole thing and the first couple of dominos have fallen..

Zola.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/currencies/bitcoin-rio-de-janeiro-mayor-invest-city-reserves-miami-cryptocurrency-2022-1