51–60 of 170 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mining through aka PoW at least does redistribution. PoS means that current owners just get more and more *coin.
Are you sure about that? Do you not think the mining is extremely concentrated by a handful of big players and is going to become increasing more so as the hardware needed is becoming more difficult to obtain?
Internet advertising's fundamental value is negative given its environmental (not to mention psychological and sociological) impact. So can we get rid of ads?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, we use physical money all the time.
What do you use physical money for?
Buying things at stores and shops that don't take card payments for one.
Buying weed for another.
Buying/selling small things in person, think garage sales, or even buying second hand cars.
I wonder if Bitcoin could ever migrate to Ethereum technology/proof of stake? It seems like a good idea but the Bitcoin community seems very resistant to change (see block size debate).
My take on this: I remain unconvinced that any form of Proof of Stake can give the same security properties we easily get from Proof of Work. I won't say never, but getting Bitcoin to move would take a very convincing argument about the viability of PoS, and so far that's not happening. (Especially given that the poster child for PoS does not actually _use_ PoS yet, they just keep promising it "soon".)
My problem with these takes is that they're missing the forest through the trees. I don't believe you'll ever be able to solve climate change by shaming people based on their usage of electricity. The problem is not HOW people use electricity, it's how the electricity itself is generated. The electricity might be used to draw triangles on my screen, hash some value, keep me warm in my apartment, or make my car move;…
This would be a reasonable stance if Bitcoin were just another activity, but it’s unique in its energy profile. What other technology is designed so that energy efficiency improvements are absorbed and nullified (through the difficulty adjustment mechanism)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If you think increasing battery capacity will solve that, read up on the supply chain of lithium.
Coal is a baseload generator. It cannot ramp up or down very easily. Nuclear is mostly baseload... not so much because its impossible to ramp-down nuclear, but because nuclear's initial-investment (site planning / engineering / regulations) are the bulk of its costs. Ongoing costs (ie: fuel) are miniscule. There's "no point" ramping down Nuclear, given its miniscule fuel costs. Might as well keep pumping electricity…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's an absurd argument. And as long as we're using solar and wind, we'll need backup from coal, gas and nuclear for when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. If you think increasing battery capacity will solve that, read up on the supply chain of lithium.
Coal is a baseload generator. It cannot ramp up or down very easily. Nuclear is mostly baseload... not so much because its impossible to ramp-down nuclear, but because nuclear's initial-investment (site planning / engineering / regulations) are the bulk of its costs. Ongoing costs (ie: fuel) are miniscule. There's "no point" ramping down Nuclear, given its miniscule fuel costs. Might as well keep pumping electricity…
Coal plants tend to be quite low on this list due to their poor scaling and obvious environmental impact - in fact for a while (I'm not certain if this is still accurate - it's about a decade out of date) one of the last entries on that list was a rarely activated coal power plant in downtown boston that had an extremely inefficient conversion ratio and was deemed exceptionally dangerous due to being located in a population center - still, in times of extreme demand it was standing ready to be activated.
Someone's really serious about pushing the "bitcoin is bad" narrative. Too many articles like that recently. Nevertheless, upvoting because HN should see this.
I mean is it not a good narrative to push? Someone in another comment pointed out each transaction uses so much energy it would be more effecient to just drive 600 miles in a tesla to hand deliver them money. That is awful, and basically for no reason, a digital currency could be designed without that entirely. There is no way to fix it, as proof of work demands that much energy be used no matter how effecient comput…
My problem with these takes is that they're missing the forest through the trees. I don't believe you'll ever be able to solve climate change by shaming people based on their usage of electricity. The problem is not HOW people use electricity, it's how the electricity itself is generated. The electricity might be used to draw triangles on my screen, hash some value, keep me warm in my apartment, or make my car move;…
This would be a reasonable stance if Bitcoin were just another activity, but it’s unique in its energy profile. What other technology is designed so that energy efficiency improvements are absorbed and nullified (through the difficulty adjustment mechanism)?
When water prices are lower people water their lawns more and take more baths.
When shipping ePackets from China is cheap, people buy more stuff from there.
I just don’t see how Bitcoin responding to supply and demand is different from any other consumable.
It feels like the argument makes the unstated presumption that Bitcoin has no utility, which is a separate debate. Bitcoin advocates would say that more and more miners arguably provide greater security assurances making the currency itself more valuable.