Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index • Hacker News Board

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#901

Post by andrepd » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:14 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #861

Aunche wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first paragraph is a fair consideration. The second is a complete stretch. It's not as if America would suddenly stop providing military support to Saudi Arabia if we suddenly switched to bitcoin. An America that historically used Bitcoin would be even more incentivized to "secure" fossil fuel nations.

If the Saudis started selling oil in bitcoin they'd probably lose their military support and/or be overthrown. It is difficult to justify why the US is providing militarily support to the Saudis without invoking oil and dollars. They are a pretty shady regime and not the sort of people the US wants to be supporting. And the Saudis don't seem to be trading with America as much as China [0, 1]. [0] https://tradingecono…

The Saudis are also well-liked by the US and much of the Western leaders because they buy billions in arms. Nevermind the crucifictions, decapitations, and dismemberments.

Reminds me of one of by favourite Frankie Boyle jokes: "Our government was angry about Khashoggi. We sent the Saudis a strongly worded arms invoice."

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#902

Post by LeoPanthera » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:22 PM UTC

Jonnax wrote: post #23

From what I understand bitcoin currently has a $20+ transaction fee with a transaction time takes 60 minutes+ With these issues in addition to the high power consumption, how will Bitcoin become a usable currency?

"Bitcoin Cash" is a fork of Bitcoin with larger blocks to solve the transaction fee problem, which it has been largely successful at.

In fact the original design for Bitcoin assumed larger blocks in the future, so it is perhaps a more accurate description to say that Bitcoin Cash is the "original" Bitcoin, and Bitcoin Core is a fork with an altered (small blocks) design.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#903

Post by elvatoloco55 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:29 PM UTC

imhoguy wrote: post #891

janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

Ok here is a puzzle: is there any electricity provider who accepts BTC? BTC runs on fiat money.

The goal is for everyone to accept it, but bitcoin is still on a journey to become store of value and medium of exchange.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#904

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:35 PM UTC

auggierose wrote: post #139

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It won't and even BTC enthusiasts have given up on that. They narrative is now that BTC is a "store of value".

But it doesn't have any value. Except that some people think it has. In times of truly global trouble, nobody will accept bitcoins as payment for bread.

[deleted]

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#905

Post by hokkos » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:42 PM UTC

janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

That's not scope 1, 2 or 3 accounting, more like scope 23 at this point. And scope 0.1 for bitcoin.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#906

Post by cliftonk » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:43 PM UTC

roenxi wrote: post #861

Aunche wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first paragraph is a fair consideration. The second is a complete stretch. It's not as if America would suddenly stop providing military support to Saudi Arabia if we suddenly switched to bitcoin. An America that historically used Bitcoin would be even more incentivized to "secure" fossil fuel nations.

If the Saudis started selling oil in bitcoin they'd probably lose their military support and/or be overthrown. It is difficult to justify why the US is providing militarily support to the Saudis without invoking oil and dollars. They are a pretty shady regime and not the sort of people the US wants to be supporting. And the Saudis don't seem to be trading with America as much as China [0, 1]. [0] https://tradingecono…

While the term "petrodollars" makes sense prescriptively, saying that the KSA would be "overthrown" if they started settling transactions in something other than dollars is pure hyperbole. The macrobullshitters that keep throwing around this idea of ongoing US coercion are doing so with absolutely no proof. Sure, there's some soft power things going on, but they settle in USD because USD has been the de-facto currency for world trade (and thus currency reserves) for some time now. IF anything, we see a movement away from USD into a currency basket with a high weighting of USD over the coming decades.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#907

Post by AdrianB1 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:52 PM UTC

jude- wrote: post #870

There's lots of misdirected anger these last few days towards Bitcoin. First, the only thing that's energy-intensive about Bitcoin is block production. Making transactions, relaying them, validating them and storing them have negligible energy cost. Second, nothing about the Bitcoin protocol requires block production to use fossil fuels. Just like with every other energy-intensive industry , the problem isn't the ind…

It is impossible to regulate and tax miners; they live in various countries and in some it is impossible to apply such regulations, if some countries will do it then minim will move to other places.

When you have an industry, you get a product that you can use. Mining energy consumption is just about how hard to make the mining, not a real limitation like in industry. It is like "let's make car building 3 times more energy consuming".

No, there is no misdirected anger, there are good reasons.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#908

Post by krupan » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:54 PM UTC

totheloop wrote: post #686

Taek wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The energy that goes into a Bitcoin transaction doesn't just pay for the one transaction. It also pays for the security of all the value stored in the rest of the system, and that's actually where most of the revenue for mining comes from - inflation, not fees. But also, Bitcoin transactions aren't typically buying coffee from your local store. It's very often international, and Bitcoin transactions offer a finality…

You mean deflation, incidentally.

Bitcoin supply is scheduled to increase for the next 100 years or so. So yes, inflation.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#909

Post by RustyRussell » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:55 PM UTC

imhoguy wrote: post #891

janoside wrote: post #612

Nic Carter's rebuttal to a Bloomberg comparison between Bitcoin/Visa, including assessments of total and per/transaction energy usage: "First of all, Bitcoin and Visa are fundamentally different systems. Bitcoin is a complete, self-contained monetary settlement system; Visa transactions are non-final credit transactions that rely on external underlying settlement rails. Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global…

Ok here is a puzzle: is there any electricity provider who accepts BTC? BTC runs on fiat money.

Actually, I'm aware of several Chinese miners which pay their (hydro) supplier in BTC.

But it's also unusual.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#910

Post by jakupovic » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 11:56 PM UTC

volgar1x wrote: post #771

nostrademons wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say you want to transfer a billion dollars 3000 miles. A billion dollars is 10 million Benjamins, which weighs 10 tons. You're not fitting that in a Tesla. More likely, you'll put it in an armored car and hire a few armed guards to go along with it. If you need to transport it overseas, you need a freighter (and a week) too. Now the energy cost of that Bitcoin transaction doesn't seem so bad. The institutional intere…

Deutsche Marks do not exist anymore.

They do exist and are still redeemable for Euros at fixed rate. Little weird but germany is a big country that wants people to trust it, so 20 years after Euro was adopted it's still worth 1.95 deutchmarks.