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

141–150 of 229 posts

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#141

Post by space_rock »

saberience wrote: post #124
mtrycz2 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You'll lose money unless you get a cheap source of excess power like hydropower in western China. Mine with a fossil fuel that can be exported to any high demand region and you'll not be competitive

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#142

Post by 127 »

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.

Raising the block size is complete nonsense. It will simply kill of nodes and at best create increased transactions per block proportional to the block size increase. A very poor trade-off.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#143

Post by space_rock »

saberience wrote: post #127
yamrzou wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

So paper money has zero value? Golds value does not equal is industrial use value. It has additional value as it has the properties that make it useful money. Same as USD paper and Bitcoin have value as money

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#144

Post by antpls »

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…

> From the angle that bitcoin is useless, it's easy to dismiss it as waste.

The debate is not about useless/useful, it is about : can we solve the same needs with a lot less spend energy?

> Use resources the way you wish and so will others. Free markets will decide where scarce resources work best.

That way of thinking leads us to the carbon catastrophe the entire world is trying to reverse right now.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#145

Post by 127 »

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.

At least start to advocate forking it off to something less environmentally destructive.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#146

Post by deschutes »

dosenbrot wrote: post #135
vincnetas wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only thing is, with Bitcoin we have the numbers. The classic banking system look like a few thousend banks with thousends of buildings with hundreds of thousend computers and million of emloyees. The employees again need to eat, sleep, drive around. They have money that needs to be designed, to be printed, to be distributed. All this cost ressources too, but this really hard to put in numbers.

Bitcoin has the energy consumption of small nations. Banking is one of the many things that can be self contained in the energy budget of a small nation. On the other hand, bitcoin's transaction throughput would constrain my neighborhood's commerce at lunch. That is to say, traditional banks are doing a whole lot more to facilitate actual commerce.

It would seem to me that the efficiency gap is insurmountably large.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#147

Post by ogogmad »

tappio wrote: post #116
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…

Oh yes. I agree, there is probably ton of waste in the entire banking sector. I just wanted to clarify why each transaction most likely costs more in blockchain compared to one transaction in the traditional network. I wonder how much energy we would consume if bitcoin would replace the whole banking sector? Back-of-an-envelope calculation: If it would be powering billion transactions per day, it would need 400 nucle…

I don't think many people believe (even crypto advocates) that a large number of transactions are going to happen directly on the blockchain. There seem to be two possible futures for Bitcoin: Either most people will transact their BTC on an energy efficient network separate from the blockchain (like the Lightning network) or they will use BTC as a long-term store of value like gold*, and not use it to buy everyday things like coffee.

* Of course, at the moment it's not a very good store of value because of the price volatility. But advocates argue that these are just growing pains.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#148

Post by joshxyz »

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.

Thats just lame and missing the entire point of bitcoin lol.

I dont even know where to start, the fact that you're really criticizing bitcoin when you got factories cars and plastics around you, or the fact that the energy isnt wasted but spent to secure and preserve its speculated market value.

Sure, we could just use fiat (paper money), it's eco-friendly, right? But good luck in dealing with inflation lol.

Simple math for all: your 1 USD today is 0.99x tomorrow, while 1 BTC will always = 1 BTC.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#149

Post by emteycz »

preya2k wrote: post #73
emteycz wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This thread does not answer the predominant usage of waste electricity by Bitcoin miners. Can't take it seriously without any mention of that. Bitcoin is mined where it makes profit, and you can't make any profit without using waste electricity. Today's mining hardware is smart enough to turn off when the powerplant signals there is too much demand and no waste (thus increased prices), and turn back on when convenien…

Do you have any sources to undermine your statement that miners predominantly use waste electricity?

Simply look at prices and rewards. You literally can't have any profit without using waste electricity. The price of ordinary industrial electricity anywhere in the world is at least double of what you can mine with the latest Bitcoin mining hardware (which is expensive to begin with).

BTW, what if the demand for Bitcoin mining hardware accelerated our technological or economical development of semiconductors? I think that's good, and the electricity is small price for that.

Re: Bitcoin Core Lead Maintainer Steps Back, Encourages Decentralization

#150

Post by joshxyz »

tempsy wrote: post #2

bitcoin appears to have just become another asset that rich people on wall street are hoarding with no real attention or interest in the actual payment mechanism at all. it might as well just be some trading cards being shuffled around.

At this state its not really intended for micro txs. Its large txs and the energy spent (yes, spent, not wasted) on the math is what secures it.

Your keys, your bitcoin.

1 USD = 0.99 USD tomorrow.

1 BTC will always be 1 BTC.

Post reply on HN