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

Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

franck-leroy.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 266 posts

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#171

Post by shawnz »

primitivesuave wrote: post #100
tsimionescu wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is a very bad comparison, for several reasons. 1. With the Apollo missions, the money being put into the project was going into research and development, so there was at least some expectation of getting new science and technology out of it. With Bitcoin,nthe money put in is going into speculation or mining, which only fuels the network. There is no reason to expect new technologies to come out of this,…

You make a very compelling argument, especially #1 that there can't be an expectation of any new technology or science to come out of money spent on speculation or mining. Equivalently, any progress in blockchain technology doesn't require the existence of the Bitcoin network to be implemented. I now see some holes in my Apollo analogy (also government vs individual spending). I am lucky there is always someone on HN…

I actually think there is an expectation that increased trust/acceptance in Bitcoin will help the success of future improved cryptocurrency technologies.

Bitcoin gives users a trustworthy decentralized store of value today that they could easily move to another cryptocurrency in future using some kind of decentralized exchange based on smart contracts. It provides liquidity for all future cryptocurrencies.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#172

Post by tsimionescu »

shawnz wrote: post #166
tsimionescu wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inventing the technology and getting it adopted are two different things. For example, I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work also helping to increase global warming. So, from my point of view, any adoption of a crypto-currency is a net-negative, and I would be happy to know that the technology exists, but is staying abandoned as long as we ha…

> I happen to believe that decentralized coins are a horrible idea in and of themselves, even without proof-of-work Sure, but that is a much different argument than proof-of-stake vs proof-of-work. With the assumption that having a successful proof-of-stake cryptocurrency is a net good, then what I am saying is maybe our usages of proof-of-work up until the future widespread adoption of proof-of-stake actually will c…

My original claim is that new technology is not getting funded by dumping energy into bitcoin mining. Proof-of-stake was proposed as a counter example, but as discussed it may actually predate bitcoin's adoption. It may be true that dumping energy into bitcoin can fund the adoption of a proof-of-stake coin, but that is no longer a new technology, it is simply adoption.

So I stand by my original point - the resources going into bitcoin are not fueling technology research.

They may be fueling PoS Ethereum adoption, but that is another argument entirely.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#173

Post by comboy »

globular-toast wrote: post #144
comboy wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do need digital gold to be able to have market of cryptocurrencies that are actually in use and not just being speculated on with fiat. Sidechains enable that. The whole waste argument is ridiculous on so many levels. I imagine these people shouting at people houses - turn off that AC! You are wasting energy for which you have paid! We could have made so many aluminum cans with that! And if you say that sure, let'…

I get what you're saying. Energy price is set by the market so it's irrelevant what it gets used for. But the free market will happily destroy the environment. This is what you learn on day 2 of economics, which is after the majority of the population left the class, it seems. We account for externalities using governments which are able to "correct" the free markets using various strategies like taxation and regulat…

You're right that the cost moves to the consumer and that it hurts those most in need. Maybe UBI, maybe tax on consumers can be nonlinear and be higher when the usage is higher ("fake accounts" are not that simple in the real world). I don't know. I'd like to think that punishing those who produce energy from non-renewable resources should be enough to make those renewable ones become more popular and cost efficient, but it's true that in the real world there are some difficult problems to solve.

The last point would be beautiful if it only was true. I would be somewhat ok with banks and funds stealing poor people money through FED if it was the case. But it is not. We are not cold and hungry, but many people are. Even if you are not thinking globally, just US only, just look at COVID-19 and the overall state of healthcare.

But the last point brings one valid criticism of Bitcoin that I don't see mentioned practically ever. Money is a positive feedback loop. Bringing real money to the world, one that cannot be easily taken by force, can be scary (don't xkcd wrench me, I mean scenario that's much further, there were many entities throughout human history that acquired a lot of wealth giving them a lot of power, at some point other people become fed up enough that they just took it by force. But in this case, it would not be in any physical place, not necessarily associated with specific individuals). Fiat currencies system is rigged, but the problem is that money itself is somewhat rigged. When you don't have enough of it, you just sell your time and sell it cheap and you don't have enough of it left to find how you could sell it better. With enough money, it just works like a magnet. Better lawyers, research done for you, being able to take high risk bets etc.

I'd love to have a state of world that you described in your last paragraph. I wouldn't care much about Bitcoin in such scenario.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#174

Post by tsimionescu »

shawnz wrote: post #171
primitivesuave wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a very compelling argument, especially #1 that there can't be an expectation of any new technology or science to come out of money spent on speculation or mining. Equivalently, any progress in blockchain technology doesn't require the existence of the Bitcoin network to be implemented. I now see some holes in my Apollo analogy (also government vs individual spending). I am lucky there is always someone on HN…

I actually think there is an expectation that increased trust/acceptance in Bitcoin will help the success of future improved cryptocurrency technologies. Bitcoin gives users a trustworthy decentralized store of value today that they could easily move to another cryptocurrency in future using some kind of decentralized exchange based on smart contracts. It provides liquidity for all future cryptocurrencies.

That is a different argument than the comparison with the Apollo mission, and entirely relies on believing that the end-goal itself, a crypto-currency based financial system, is a net good in itself.

The Apollo argument was more compelling because it didn't require any value-judgement of the end-goal (but it was less appealing to me for the reasons I outlined). It is an argument about the process, regardless of the results (in the end, the lunar landings in themselves were a symbolic victory more than any great advancement of science - the science happened on the way).

We can go into arguments on why I think the end-goal of crypto-currency believers a la Satoshi would be a net negative, but others have covered it pretty well (deflation, fraud, money laundering, having your life savings destroyed by a hack etc).

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#175

Post by thejynxed »

shawnz wrote: post #171
primitivesuave wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make a very compelling argument, especially #1 that there can't be an expectation of any new technology or science to come out of money spent on speculation or mining. Equivalently, any progress in blockchain technology doesn't require the existence of the Bitcoin network to be implemented. I now see some holes in my Apollo analogy (also government vs individual spending). I am lucky there is always someone on HN…

I actually think there is an expectation that increased trust/acceptance in Bitcoin will help the success of future improved cryptocurrency technologies. Bitcoin gives users a trustworthy decentralized store of value today that they could easily move to another cryptocurrency in future using some kind of decentralized exchange based on smart contracts. It provides liquidity for all future cryptocurrencies.

To a point, but that trust by the public can be easily swayed and destroyed - see Biden pick Janet Yellen and her recent comments about how BTC is used for and good for nothing but criminal activity including that by state sponsors of terrorism.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#176

Post by NonCoder »

pharmakom wrote: post #28

Don’t destroy Bitcoin. Invent a more efficient alternative for people to switch to.

An alternative could be where a coin could be directly proportional to a tree planted! Its value would go up as the tree grew bigger. Think of a carbon sink. While it would come with its own loopholes like having invasive plants. Its an interesting way to have an alternate. One could even expand to other similar sources which could aid to a better future.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#177

Post by tsimionescu »

inter_netuser wrote: post #167
tsimionescu wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you don't care to understand how and why the global monetary system works is not an excuse to start believing in "digital gold". There are good reasons why bad ideas, such as limited supplies of currency, have been abandoned. The huge problems of the monetary system lie more in the direction of Bitcoin (the unbridled speculation of Wall Street) than fractional reserve banking and fiat money.

What are the most important properties/goals of Bitcoin, in your view? I am genuinely interested in your view. The attitude on this forum towards Bitcoin literally boggles my mind, at most maybe 5% truly understand it.

Fixed supply, algorithmic cryptographic validation of transactions, psuedonimity, no centralized control by a human-like entity.

Each of these turns out to be a net-negative in my view:

- fixed supply means that people are incentivized to hold bitcoin instead of spending/investing

- algorithmic transactions mean that there is no way to reverse a mistaken transaction or a fraud; it also means that losing the key to your wallet is irreversible destruction of the money contained in that wallet

- pseudonimity means that it is very hard to track money laundering and other illegal financial schemes

- lack of centralized control enforces all of the others and makes it impossible to prop up the currency based on the current needs of the economy

I also understand the distrust of fractional-reserve banking and most complicated financial manipulations, and I wouldn't deny in any way that these have been misused very often at the benefit of the rich and powerful. But, at least with the current system, citizens have some amount of democratic control over their financial system, which they wouldn't in a pure Bitcoin world.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#178

Post by tsimionescu »

inter_netuser wrote: post #143
jonhendry18 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Calling out the BTC network on its energetic inefficiency completely misses the point that the work put into the network is exactly the scarce digital asset, and hence the store of value." That's no excuse for the obscene waste of resources.

It's much cheaper than maintenance of a nuclear arsenal to enforce the USD reserve status around the globe. What's the CO2 footprint of standing armies around the world? Have you tried cancelling that?

It would be great to get rid of the armies of the world, but that's neither here nor there. Armies and military spending wouldn't go away if people dealt in Bitcoin.

Oh, the purpose of the US army and nuclear arsenal is not to "enforce the USD reserve status", it is to advance America's imperial goals, which vary a lot. The status of the US dollar is a second-order consequence of America's power.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#179

Post by tsimionescu »

mckirk wrote: post #67
ForHackernews wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work put into the network is exactly the scarce asset that is being invested in. No! No it isn't! Gah! I'm sorry but it is so frustrating to hear this nonsense repeated over and over. Bitcoin is not valuable just because you wasted shedloads of energy to make a bitcoin! It's valuable because somebody else will exchange something of value for it. It's incredibly maddening how so many crypto-libertarians suddenly…

But why are people willing to exchange something of value for it? Because they can trust in it serving as a secure way to transfer tokens of ownership. And that is only possible thanks to the PoW computations, which have to be expensive enough that attacking the system would be more costly than the value you could extract through an attack. So, in a sense its value indeed derives directly from the work put into the s…

People also invested in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, and that one didn't cost as much energy as the Czech Republic. Even more interestingly, it seems likely that some people were investing in Bernie's scheme while knowning that it is fraud - they trusted that others trust it, not that it's secure.

Point being, trust and trust-worthiness are two separate things. Most people investing in Bitcoin have not in any way confirmed for themselves that the algorithm is trust-worthy, they just trust that others are also willing to buy it so that they won't be left defrauded. Hell, people have been defrauded by the likes of Mt Gox, and the network didn't collapse entirely.

Re: Green hackers around the world, let’s destroy Bitcoin

#180

Post by tsimionescu »

midjji wrote: post #86
ForHackernews wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the work put into the network is exactly the scarce asset that is being invested in. No! No it isn't! Gah! I'm sorry but it is so frustrating to hear this nonsense repeated over and over. Bitcoin is not valuable just because you wasted shedloads of energy to make a bitcoin! It's valuable because somebody else will exchange something of value for it. It's incredibly maddening how so many crypto-libertarians suddenly…

The value lies not in the energy but in its utility to facilitate transfers without the expressed permission of some authority. The energy isnt wasted though, the safety of the trustless transaction is proportional to the expended energy. While not the source of value, it is a necessity, not a waste.

> The energy isnt wasted though, the safety of the trustless transaction is proportional to the expended energy. While not the source of value, it is a necessity, not a waste.

This would be somewhat true if Bitcoin were the only mechanism for trustless transactions, but there are others that consume far less energy, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawala.

Post reply on HN