Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

laanwj.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 229 posts

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#121

Post by LittlePeter »

esimov wrote: post #37

I cannot recommend enough for everyone who has a minimal sensibility towards the climate impact to read this thread: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1350869944888664064 . Since we are inevitable heading over to a climate catastrophe it's really the time to advocate against bitcoin.

> Since we are inevitable heading over to a climate catastrophe it's really the time to advocate against bitcoin.

I would advocate for renewable energy. It's not like miners demand electricity to be from fossil fuels. The electricity gets paid for, how you use it is up to you.

If Bitcoin would run 100% on solar power I guess then it would be fine? Or maybe you're unhappy with Bitcoin because of its goal and not the means it gets there? That would be different discussion.

It feels like people want to argue against Bitcoin, don't have credible arguments, and bring out the climate card.

Climate is going to shit, but not because of Bitcoin.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#122

Post by spacerocking »

gotstad wrote: post #36
spacerocking wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasteful compared to which other network that manages money and protects property rights? Most popular place to mine bitcoin is the north-west of China where there are unused hydroplants

I don’t fully understand your argument. Are you saying that a full crypto inplementation would entirely rid the World of the need for military, police, lawyers etc. or what?

No but it removes the need to delegate trust to managing the ledger to a bank. A bank which is required to be highly regulated, audited and with great physical security to earn that trust

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#124

Post by saberience »

mtrycz2 wrote: post #91
esimov wrote: post #37

I cannot recommend enough for everyone who has a minimal sensibility towards the climate impact to read this thread: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1350869944888664064 . Since we are inevitable heading over to a climate catastrophe it's really the time to advocate against bitcoin.

That thread is assuming that BTC runs on fossil, non-renewable energy, which was mostly correct ten to five years ago, but will be mostly wrong onwards. BTC runs mostly on surplus hydroelectric power. This may change based on what's locally available and the local cost of oil gas and coal, but when renewables will become cheaper than fossil (which will never be soon enough) it will not make any sense to mine on fossi…

Citation please.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#125

Post by CryptoPunk »

b10c wrote: post #118
CryptoPunk wrote: post #110

People like this shouldn't be leading a project that threatens to upend multi-trillion dollar institutions. If it weren't for his timidity, Bitcoin would have hard forked in 2015 to raise the block size limit to allow for mass-adoption.

There is no single leader in Bitcoin.

He could have authorized the hard fork.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#126

Post by crumbshot »

disruptalot wrote: post #74
esimov wrote: post #37

I cannot recommend enough for everyone who has a minimal sensibility towards the climate impact to read this thread: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1350869944888664064 . Since we are inevitable heading over to a climate catastrophe it's really the time to advocate against bitcoin.

This thread is nothing new. This exact sentiment has been repeated over and over for the last 10 years. From the angle that bitcoin is useless, it's easy to dismiss it as waste. The reality is that you live in world where people have different understandings and values than you may have. So advocating against Bitcoin is no different than advocating against air travel. You see no issue in the huge amounts of energy co…

The climate catatrosphe that looms upon us all has been caused by individuals and organisations using resources as they wish.

What we've ended up with is a planetwide tragedy of the commons - and free markets aren't going to solve this. They can only continue to exacerbate it.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#127

Post by saberience »

yamrzou wrote: post #72
gorgoiler wrote: post #38

I don’t understand Bitcoin. If I make bread and you grow potatoes, we can barter, but it’s much easier to use some intermediary to track the value that we exchanged. The intermediary facilitates this with tokens (coins, notes, cards.) Bitcoin seems perverse. It puts all the value in the tokens themselves and at the same time I can’t even use it to buy bread or potatoes. About the only thing I hear that you can buy wi…

I think it should seen as more similar to gold than to money. We don't use gold to buy goods either, but it has a value, because people believe it has. The value of Bitcoin is disputed because not everyone believes in it yet. So it's either a gold in the making or nothing, depending on whether those who believe in it will succeed at convincing the others of its merits.

Gold has a value because it can also be used for legitimate industrial applications, plus it has the other physical qualities of being attractive to look at and doesn't corrode (i.e. useful for making jewellery).

So yes, while it does have value because people believes it has value. Even if no person wanted gold for its "imagined" value, it would still have value because it's used by many actual companies in actual products (electronics etc). E.g. Every iPhone contains about 0.0012 ounces of gold.

Bitcoin has no value other than imagined by people. I.e. Greater Fool theory.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#128

Post by andy_ppp »

neolog wrote: post #98
hombre_fatal wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like crusading against people using their clothes dryer, driving when they don't absolutely need to, turning on A/C when they could just put on a sweater, not to mention all the industrial and commercial energy expenditures producing bullshit we don't need. From where you sit, look around your room and contemplate the incredible energy expended to get these items where they are. If your concern is about avoid…

> The bitcoin network annually wastes 78 TWh (terrawatt hours) annually or the energy consumption of several million US households. That seems like a lot, no?

We still need to move to fossil fuel free energy with Bitcoin being a huge energy user or not. It seems like a lot but money has to be backed by something, a percentage of the total processing power on Earth makes sense.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#129

Post by dandanua »

tappio wrote: post #119
dandanua wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's in the design. Higher price -> more miners -> increased mining difficulty (due to design goal – 1 block per 10 min) -> more energy waste. Bitcoin was a fun prototype idea, but humans made it just evil. As usual, though.

Does this lead to the energy consumption increasing over time? I'm not too familiar with the technology.

Sure, increased mining difficulty means you have to do more computations to find a block. Here is the graph https://www.blockchain.com/charts/difficulty

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#130

Post by illustriousbear »

vincnetas wrote: post #120
illustriousbear wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditional banks are not accountable for all the electricity their services consume. One example alone is considering all the clients, pos and other systems that operate. Banks are also a very different model with different overheads compared to Bitcoin. I'd argue that banking infrastructure is quite wasteful with their physical skyscrapers and vaults. Executives at banks would argue otherwise. Bitcoin aims to disru…

But if you calculated energy expenses per transaction or per customer, i think that classic banking would look very efficient compared to bitcoin.

Perhaps but bartering grain and fruit at the local market is probably more efficient than traditional banking too.
Post reply on HN