301–310 of 361 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bank Of America Tower requires around 8 megawatt. And it's only one skyscraper.
So what? Bank of America is a company that provides banking services as a business model, they are not a necessary aspect of fiat currency any more than coinbase is a necessity of bitcoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read your arguments and unfortunately most don't hold water. > 1. Miners currently use approximately only 0.0012% of the energy consumed by the world. This doesn't change the fact that you're using energy. The second argument is basically the same, just extrapolating into the future. > 3. Mining would be a waste if there was another more efficient way to implement a Bitcoin-like currency without proof-of-work. This…
> 4. Bitcoin is already a net benefit to the economy. Venture capitalists invested more than $1 billion into at least 729 Bitcoin companies which created thousands of jobs. You may disregard the first three arguments, but the bottom line is that spending an estimated 150 megawatt in a system that so far created thousands of jobs is a valuable economic move, not a waste. We cannot decide if an activity is valuable or…
You are right. However Bitcoin is not pointless and comparable to digging holes and filling them up. The simple fact that this financial network is censorship-resistant is a huge benefit to society, already positively impacting many people.
Excellent, my partner is looking for a card right now, a (lighly) used 1060, 1070 or 580 might be just the thing! In the meantime, my machine which is a gaming rig that is mostly idle, may as well do a bit of mining...
Just took a quick look at this. If you are located in the 'mining valley' of Washington where power is ~2c/kwh you are still getting healthy profits. A computer with 7 GTX 1070 graphics cards should produce ~230 mh/s and draw 1 kw. This would cost approximately $30/month in power factoring in kw demand + cooling. The above setup will currently generate $385/month in ETH. So basically for miners who are in the right s…
(1kw would cost $14.4 at 2c/kwh) and you say $30.
I don't know much about stuff but i didn't know cooling is that expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) No there is no other way. (An alternative, proof-of-stake, is still an active research area. Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable.) 2) Because a permission-less censorship-resistant decentralized financial system has the potential to truly improve society, hence worth spending energy on it. I have presented multiple arg…
>Even Ethereum abandoned the idea of completely switching away from proof-of-work because they realized PoS isn't completely workable No it didn't. I follow Ethereum development closely and I know for a fact that's absolutely untrue. I'm not sure why you're misleading people about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it that far fetched? Right now most disk encrypting ransomware demands bitcoin for decryption.
Are biological weapons being used to mass murder people a natural extrapolation of ransomware?
Does anyone know where the money that initially went into the cryptocoins during the run-up this year came from, or where it went?
It works like a Ponzi scheme. The people who are buying now give their money to the people who got in earlier. As long as more and more people buy its great but eventually you run out of buyers - optimistically the price will level off but more realistically it'll crash.
This is entirely incorrect, no users are paid dividends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US dollars are primarily created by banks using the fractional reserve system. So a better estimate, though harder to find, might be the total energy (including human calories) to create a loan.
Why? It's going to cost energy to create a loan regardless of the fiat it's denominated in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It works like a Ponzi scheme. The people who are buying now give their money to the people who got in earlier. As long as more and more people buy its great but eventually you run out of buyers - optimistically the price will level off but more realistically it'll crash.
>The people who are buying now give their money to the people who got in earlier. This is entirely incorrect, no users are paid dividends.