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

Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 188 posts

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#101

Post by creaturemachine »

deeeeplearning wrote: post #61
coralreef wrote: post #46

Funny trend: solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/Price-of-electric... Here's a hot take: Bitcoin subsidizes clean energy development. Miners buy cheap energy; clean energy infrastructure gets profitable return. Cost of development and manufacturing lowers further because of scale; pollution and externalities reduced; humanity wins. Bitcoin saves humanity?

>Miners buy cheap energy; clean energy infrastructure gets profitable return. This true in China where most mining happens?

China seems content in popping up dams wherever they please, no matter the human or ecological cost.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/8/china-to-build-the-w...

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#102

Post by bcheung »

mpfundstein wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost of wind and solar was going down already. Bitcoin alone isn’t the driver. Bitcoin is, however, consuming some of that new energy generation with a new consumption: Doing useless calculations to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin increases energy demand which also drives an increase in supply . We can’t take old power plants offline if the new hydro power is taken up by new mining operations. It’s silly that we’re going to su…

the calculations make sure the btc network works. so it can't be useless. or do you dismiss ALL of btc as useless?

Well, there are alternatives consensus mechanism that look just as good if not superior like Proof of Stake that don't require all that electricity.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#103

Post by thezoginator »

mpfundstein wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost of wind and solar was going down already. Bitcoin alone isn’t the driver. Bitcoin is, however, consuming some of that new energy generation with a new consumption: Doing useless calculations to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin increases energy demand which also drives an increase in supply . We can’t take old power plants offline if the new hydro power is taken up by new mining operations. It’s silly that we’re going to su…

the calculations make sure the btc network works. so it can't be useless. or do you dismiss ALL of btc as useless?

All of btc is useless! Please give an argument how it is not.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#104

Post by ad31mar »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #78
ad31mar wrote: post #55

So much anti-Bitcoin sentiment on HN lately, recycling decade old strawman arguments. Does the Occam's razor apply here? Are people just salty they didn't buy a few back when they first heard about it, now trying to justify themselves?

I've seen this comment before, and honestly I think it's cheap. This article is about a clear, real problem with the current implementation of Bitcoin, namely that it requires enormous amounts of energy. I am not "anti-Bitcoin", I am anti a payment and financial storage protocol that requires gargantuan amounts of energy. So if you have a problem or comment on the article in question, please make it, we're all ears.…

If you were all ears you'd know by now that there's no viable alternative to PoW. Or genuinely cared to find out for yourself for that matter.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#105

Post by mpfundstein »

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #19
bustin wrote: post #5

How does someone measure the potential value of "being a pain in the ass to those who seek to control the supply of money"

It’s amazing that the popular narrative is that the average person will somehow benefit if we switch to a currency that is majority owned by a small handful of early adopters. I’m not a fan of the current inflationary economic policy, but in no way would a Bitcoin economy be a win for the average person. Early adopters and Bitcoin whales would love it because they hold the vast majority of Bitcoin. They want nothing…

the early adopters don't control the network. they are just actors on it. Even the richest btc holder can't freeze your wallet or prohibit you from spending/trading/sharing it.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#106

Post by variaga »

coralreef wrote: post #46

Funny trend: solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/Price-of-electric... Here's a hot take: Bitcoin subsidizes clean energy development. Miners buy cheap energy; clean energy infrastructure gets profitable return. Cost of development and manufacturing lowers further because of scale; pollution and externalities reduced; humanity wins. Bitcoin saves humanity?

Electical power is fungible and an increase in demand for any power increases the profitability of all existing sources of power including coal, reducing the rate at which fossil-fuel power sources will be replaced.

The idea that consuming more power is good for the environment is not supported by the evidence. Or any evidence.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#107

Post by PragmaticPulp »

mpfundstein wrote: post #92
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cost of wind and solar was going down already. Bitcoin alone isn’t the driver. Bitcoin is, however, consuming some of that new energy generation with a new consumption: Doing useless calculations to mine Bitcoin. Bitcoin increases energy demand which also drives an increase in supply . We can’t take old power plants offline if the new hydro power is taken up by new mining operations. It’s silly that we’re going to su…

the calculations make sure the btc network works. so it can't be useless. or do you dismiss ALL of btc as useless?

You’re missing the point.

The Bitcoin network is literally designed to incentivize, with payment, bringing new energy-inefficient operations online to “mine”.

The efficiency of the network gets worse and worse all the time, all while processing the same limited number of transactions.

Worse yet, Bitcoiners seem to like it this way. Proposals to increase block size have not been welcomed, and they go to great lengths to discourage switching to other protocols with better energy efficiency (because it would harm their investment).

The entire system revolves around inefficiency, and unfortunately we pay for that inefficiency with energy consumption.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#108

Post by mamon »

rybosworld wrote: post #30
fileeditview wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But is it better to see your crypto devalued by some big dump? Would probably be easy for a nation state to do this if it wanted to.. All this independence from states seems totally overrated to me. They can tax your crypto. They can participate in the crypto market.. many possibilities.

People have been making some variation of this claim since bitcoin was $0.01. There haven't yet been any successful attempts at destroying it, which I think is what you're implying. Not to say it can't happen, but then if we prepared for every single possible scenario we'd all be quite exhausted.

Bitcoin exists for just over a decade now. Give governments and financial regulatory bodies some time to catch up and they will destroy it, maybe creating their own cryptocurrencies in process.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#109

Post by georgyo »

coralreef wrote: post #46

Funny trend: solar and wind power are now cheaper than coal. https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2020/11/Price-of-electric... Here's a hot take: Bitcoin subsidizes clean energy development. Miners buy cheap energy; clean energy infrastructure gets profitable return. Cost of development and manufacturing lowers further because of scale; pollution and externalities reduced; humanity wins. Bitcoin saves humanity?

If we take it a few steps out, it sounds like wasting energy can save the world.

The more energy we waste the more energy we need, the more profitable cheap energy sources are!

Of course the more profitable wasting energy becomes, the more coal and oil will be burned to make money as well.

Re: Nouriel Roubini: Bitcoin is not a hedge against tail risk

#110

Post by miracle2k »

FlownScepter wrote: post #58
arnavs wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto mining produces a service, which is maintaining a ledger of payments that works in a certain way. This specific problem — settling transactions — is an industry amounting to billions. Think of BTC like a MasterCard or Visa competitor, albeit a unique one.

This 'service' doesn't need to exist. It didn't solve a problem that wasn't already solved, we've had ledgers since the Bronze age, and probably before that. That's not to say that the blockchain itself isn't useful, of course it is for numerous applications, including even financial ones. However, Bitcoin as it stands today is functionally useless apart from being something that our system has decided has value, bec…

But that doesn't seem to square with your GP post in my mind. If cigarettes went away, the world will keep moving just fine. They don't need to exist.

But you posit that people choosing cigarettes provides some value, despite the negative effects. Why is there no value than in people being able to chose a money/investment vehicle they believe to be to their benefit?

Post reply on HN