Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

cbeci.org

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#991
post #265

Ok, I have to admit that I am one of those people who knew about BTC very, very early but never bought any. Now, of course I should have mined at least 100 back in the days, but anyways. The reason I have never mined nor bought into it is that I still, to this day struggle to come up with a real reason to do so. Am I getting too old? Do I not see the "huge potential" what it may become? Don't I want to get freaking r…

I think they're very useful, if your a guy like Musk, who needs to move billions of USD, anonymously. You can't carry gold around, nor diamonds anymore with full body scanners. BTC is the only way to move massive wealth, ergo why NK is using it to buy WMD material's & know-how.

USD is backed by guns ( nukes ), what is BTC back's by? Large numbers, 10E77 (2E256), greater than the number of sub-atomic particles in the universe. You more likely to find a nickle lost in our galaxy, than to find a specific BTC private-key.

The problem with the question here, is nobody thinks like a rich guy, let's fall back to JP-Morgans famous "Only gold is money, all else is credit". I hate to admit it but BTC in most recent decade has largely vacuumed up all the paranoid money that would normally be in gold.

I don't even want to touch on the fact that SHA256 & ECDSA SECP256k1 are both NSA algos that are backbone of BTC. In my day the NSA didn't release an algo that they didnt' have a backdoor key.

IMHO BTC is a great way to move massive wealth, but only the rich can play this game. From a GUV point of view BTC has kept the paranoid money out of gold, let's remember the original Satoshi white-paper came out of IMF-NSA, in 1997.

I myself have played BTC since 2011, and have hacked it since then, as its always been more fun to hack Secp256k1 ( big prime numbers and such ) than thinking about 'money' of which I have no use.

The problem that I see is like Alfred H Proofrock in the famous TS-ELIOT 'women come&go speaking of Michelangelo', IMHO BTC requires a total classic knowledge of math, physics, computation, and economic history to 'get-it', and thus given that most are not masters of these four, they're not unlike the wisemen holding different parts of the elephant.

In summary BTC is a toy of rich men, and it will go away when the NSA-IMF decides open the backdoors of sha-256&secp256k1. Even then newer coins will come out using sha-512, and secp512k-n, and the game will continue, as the crypto-currency model has been proven, and road-tested.

My advice for little people is to diversify, say have a little of everything, some gold, some farm-land, some stock, some cash, and most important of all to hold a passport is 'good country' when the SHTF in the USA. Today, I think it much better to play ETH and/or ZEN, which have had better gains, and still are profitable to mine, which allows you to accumulate with privacy, as the coinbase (or any 'exchange') purhcase of crypto is just an IRS database. I would say like gold, 5% crypto, and as along as its a good crypto, it doesn't really matter. By good I mean backed by good-teams, which is why I like ETH and/or ZEN;

BTC is a barometer that's why my #1 hobby is cracking BTC ( factoring ECDSA primes using GPU farms ) its field-medal level math, that you will never get public recognition for solving.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#992
post #7

Question that came to mind after reading the headline: could this become a future reason for governments to criminalise the trading / use of Bitcoin because of negative environmental effects? On the surface it seems the value of Bitcoin is directly tied to its energy consumption and thus environmental harm. I get that Bitcoin itself is decentralised and cannot be banned outright. But could it be neutered in such a wa…

Maybe tax it in relation to its environmental harm? It would put me off if I had to record them on the tax return.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#993
post #989

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are comparing centralized entities to a decentralized one. I don't believe it's a fair comparison.

Being decentralized does not exempt it from value comparison, each node in the network serves the same purpose and is bound by the same rules.

Well, then we should compare Bitcoin to how much energy is being consumed by every apartment/house in the world, which is more closer to how Bitcoin network operates.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#994

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…

> Visa relies on ACH, Fedwire, SWIFT, the global correspondent banking system, the Federal Reserve do you have a good link that explains how this all works and how these different components interact?

For rather deep dive: https://www.coursera.org/learn/money-banking/home/welcome

Something shorter: https://gendal.me/2013/11/24/a-simple-explanation-of-how-mon...

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#995
post #66

Imagine if all real currency was replaced by bitcoin. How much green house gases would be generated to keep our economic engines going and also who would be genrating this money? What would the economic outlook of the world look like during covid if it happened in a world where all currency was bitcoin?

The world would definitely be a bad place.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#996
Bitcoin (as an investment) is a pyramid scheme. It produces no wealth but has become a powerful means of transferring wealth to the upper layers of the pyramid by growing through the base of the pyramid and recruiting the "greater fools" still out there. It was meant as a currency but has become a investment goal and thus a pyramid scheme. Lets get rid of it, not least for the sake of environment.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#998
post #953
post #728

The sudden barrage of anti-bitcoin news looks slightly suspicious.

Check my account history. You'll see I'm very critical of proof of work schemes and you'll find that it goes back to 2012. You'll probably also find me being enthusiastic about Bitcoin until ~2015 when it became clear what it really is. That more and more people are realizing this, especially as the problem gets bigger and bigger, is only hopeful to me.

I trust you. It's only I'm seeing a surge of anti-bitcoin news since Tesla bought some.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#999
post #914
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Bitcoin guy is going to be the second place after Thomas Midgley Jr [1][2] in terms of most damage done to Earth by an individual I reckon. Is there no way to slim down the resource requirements to cut electrical use? (without breaking everything Bitcoin of course) - [1] He played a major role in developing leaded gasoline (Tetraethyllead) and some of the first chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) [2] Environmental histori…

> Is there no way to slim down the resource requirements to cut electrical use? To put it bluntly (not meant to sound blunt, I just can't think of a better example without reiterating a technical explanation of how bitcoin works), that's like asking if people living in the Sahara can't simply drink less water to solve the unavailability of fresh water. And even that's a bad comparison because the human body actually…

For future reference go with the technical explanation. We're on hacker news and I'm not a simpleton, I'm just not into Bitcoin haha. Analogies are always awful.

Cheers for the reply

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#1000
post #265

Ok, I have to admit that I am one of those people who knew about BTC very, very early but never bought any. Now, of course I should have mined at least 100 back in the days, but anyways. The reason I have never mined nor bought into it is that I still, to this day struggle to come up with a real reason to do so. Am I getting too old? Do I not see the "huge potential" what it may become? Don't I want to get freaking r…

Bitcoin is a potentially revolutionary technology in a very early stage. The important new part, the consensus algorithm, is ground breaking. Now, the very first implementation (Bitcoin) kinda sucks, like most technologies in their first versions. But there are newer generations, each more interesting, and each unlocking more possibilities. We are for example getting: * No-autority enforcement of contracts (Ethereum)…

> potentially revolutionary

this seems to mean "not actually revolutionary" in practice

Post reply on HN