171–180 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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?
Like humans would have no interest in cheap power if it weren't for bitcoin!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At this point you’re just tossing out unrelated statements without even trying to tie them back to an argument. Yes, the Earth is bombarded with a lot of sunlight. So what? Doesn’t change the fact that Bitcoin is consuming existing electricity infrastructure that we could be using for something else.
Electricity gets generated and either consumed or wasted. Bitcoin eats excess available supply. What problems do you want to throw energy at that is economically viable?
:-o
Is this... a joke? Your claim is that production exists, regardless of demand?
That simply isn't the case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Electricity product from a coal plant vs a solar farm is the same, but its costs are not. The cost per kwh from a coal plant has not changed in 10 years. Solar has seen massive reductions and is cheaper than coal. Consuming more solar power is gives more profit to the solar power industry. I'm ok with that.
Increasing electricity consumption will increase all forms of electricity production.
I believe you don't even think about what you're saying. You start with the premise - "More energy consumed is naturally good" - and then invent an argument around it by throwing words together haphazardly.
Since the fundamental value of a piece of paper with dead presidents printed on it is also zero, and would be negative if a proper carbon tax was applied to its massive polluting military, I predict that the current bubble will eventually end in another bust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Do you have a link ready to any crypto that has a working proof-of-stake? Back when I was looking into this topic there was none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electricity gets generated and either consumed or wasted. Bitcoin eats excess available supply. What problems do you want to throw energy at that is economically viable?
> Electricity gets generated and either consumed or wasted. Bitcoin eats excess available supply. :-o Is this... a joke? Your claim is that production exists, regardless of demand? That simply isn't the case.
They consume energy in the form of electricity during the day. At night, they have no need for it shut off the turbines. This is unused and uncaptured energy that could have been put to use. The potential energy is "wasted" because the infrastructure is underutilized, the energy could not be preserved. This is starting to change as battery technology improves and makes it economically feasible to store energy. Otherwise, energy consuming applications could consume this supply, providing return to the townspeople's investment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electricity product from a coal plant vs a solar farm is the same, but its costs are not. The cost per kwh from a coal plant has not changed in 10 years. Solar has seen massive reductions and is cheaper than coal. Consuming more solar power is gives more profit to the solar power industry. I'm ok with that.
This is delusion. Solar power is 1.7% of the world's electricity. Increasing electricity consumption will increase all forms of electricity production. I believe you don't even think about what you're saying. You start with the premise - "More energy consumed is naturally good" - and then invent an argument around it by throwing words together haphazardly.
Miners consume electricity.
Solar, wind and geothermal are the cheapest energy you can find, and their cost continues to fall.
Miners are therefore incentivized to increase profit by buying cheap renewable energy.
Renewable energy industry increases revenue and can continue to invest in R&D, infrastructure, distribution, etc. of said energy production. Costs go down for producing new units of renewable energy as a result of industry maturation.
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…
Gold is one object that's served the money function in the past. It has properties (fungibility, durability, scarcity, etc.) that money needs. But it's "dumb" and cumbersome, as physical objects are.
Building digital objects that serve the money function is important. One solution is the centralized ACH/banking system. But this has drawbacks --- poor scarcity, high political exposure, etc. I view BTC as simply building a competitor. You get better money properties, at the cost of more energy, etc.
Is it worth it? I don't know. But that partly depends on how the future produces energy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> Why is there no value than in people being able to chose a money/investment vehicle they believe to be to their benefit? Because the only thing generated is fake money on a spreadsheet. There is no product, there is only consumption of resources to generate nothing. For all of what's involved here, you could just pull the same amount of money out of thin air, deposit it in their IRA, and nothing changes, apart from…