Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#131

Post by throwaway20875 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:40 PM UTC

shiado wrote: post #62

The irony is that the exact society destabilizing grand visions of the future billionaires advocate for are some of the main drivers behind people embracing Bitcoin. If you push a "you own nothing" WEF approved dystopian tech oligarch reality don't be surprised when people adopt an asset that cannot be confiscated by the government.

Exactly this. Bitcoin is the result of the gross power imbalances present in society. It's ironic that those on the heavier end of the scale, like Gates, are attacking Bitcoin with the cudgel of environmental policy. Rather than fix the power imbalances that are the root cause of his supposed gripe, Gates is advocating for the status quo enjoyed by him and his contemporaries.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#132

Post by junippor » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

nelsontodd wrote: post #26

Why is 'rich billionaire has uninformed or possibly self interested opinions' newsworthy

Calling Bill Gates uninformed about anything is breathtakingly uninformed.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#133

Post by rhacker » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

nelsontodd wrote: post #72

jetpackjoe wrote: post #9

There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.

With bitcoin, you are paying for security. I know if I send you a bitcoin transaction there is a high probability it won't be reverted in our lifetime, possibly ever. I'm not a maxi but these new projects don't have that guarantee yet; likely they never will.

How many times has this been used in practice?

Like really - did your friend owe you $200 and you wanted to make sure he couldn't pay you something over square and then call his credit company and say his card was lost?

Like are you a shop online and you wanted to make sure ALL of your customers are paying in Bitcoin so they can't claim someone stole their card?

Are you a party to a lawsuit and the judge decided to oversee the other party pay you (the fictitious plaintiff in this scenario) $50000 with a check and you're worried he's calling his bank afterward and cancel the check?

None of these scenarios would be made better with Bitcoin:

Transaction costs

Some online stores ARE scams and it's better to have a real money trail - especially the ones involving bitcoin

The last scenario is easily solved because the judge would be able to provide much harsher realities for the check canceller.

From a practicality standpoint every time someone talks about irreversible transactions I just eyeroll at the actual logistics of that working in our world of 7B people.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#134

Post by zests » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #27

zests wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electricity per transaction is an extremely poor way to communicate anything useful. It says nothing about the actual harm of Bitcoin and only leaves readers (and bloggers) drawing their own conclusions.

why is it a poor way to communicate anything useful? if sending someone a dollar through venmo costs $0.0000001 worth of electricity and sending someone a dollar through the bitcoin network costs $1 doesn't that communicate everything you need to know?

In your example, you are giving concrete numbers. Concrete numbers are extremely useful. If you make a comparison without concrete numbers, it can often be misleading. It goes without saying that concrete numbers can be misleading on their own. It can be quite difficult to nail down rules for honest communication.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#135

Post by rawtxapp » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

coldpie wrote: post #97

hacknat wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin eventually in usage. In some ways it already has. Ethereum's transaction fees are set to drop like a rock over the next few years, and so many useful things are built on it already.

What usage? Isn't bitcoin used only for speculation, and a bit of crime on the side? I'm not aware of any usage for bitcoin that isn't purely commodity trading (with zero actual underlying value) or scams.

A significant % of Bitcoin hasn't moved in years, people seem to be using it as a store of value. Crime usage is magnitude smaller than traditional currencies (source Citi's Bitcoin on the tipping point report).

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#136

Post by kristofferR » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

Ceezy wrote: post #85

mumblemumble wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're moving toward PoS, which should help with that: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms...

They are talking about POS in ethereum since years.

Yeah, duh, it's not like it's a small project:

https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/133392262085774540...

It's pretty bad that Bitcoin still hasn't started working on it.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#137

Post by lmilcin » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:41 PM UTC

nelsontodd wrote: post #72

jetpackjoe wrote: post #9

There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.

With bitcoin, you are paying for security. I know if I send you a bitcoin transaction there is a high probability it won't be reverted in our lifetime, possibly ever. I'm not a maxi but these new projects don't have that guarantee yet; likely they never will.

This is repeatedly cited delusional conclusion.

The reality is that consensus only requires people to agree on something. It does not require burning tons of energy or military action.

Prisoner's dilemma is only a thing if you consider finite games, ie. played for your immediate benefit. If you consider an infinite game (for example the good and survival of humanity in perpetuity), it can be clearly shown that there is better solution and it is for people to grow up and just agree on a protocol that does not require burning energy or military action.

Do you think people will cheat each other given chance? That may be true when there is good chance of not getting punished for it. But if you ever lived in a small community where people rely on each other for survival (ie. infinite game), you would notice people will not cheat each other when they know they will have to rely on the community until death.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#138

Post by deweller » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

jetpackjoe wrote: post #103

nelsontodd wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With bitcoin, you are paying for security. I know if I send you a bitcoin transaction there is a high probability it won't be reverted in our lifetime, possibly ever. I'm not a maxi but these new projects don't have that guarantee yet; likely they never will.

Proof of stake crypto currencies are just as secure.

Proof of stake is a different security model. It may work but it has not been proven in a $1 trillion high stakes environment yet.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#139

Post by jfk13 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

nelsontodd wrote: post #72

jetpackjoe wrote: post #9

There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.

With bitcoin, you are paying for security. I know if I send you a bitcoin transaction there is a high probability it won't be reverted in our lifetime, possibly ever. I'm not a maxi but these new projects don't have that guarantee yet; likely they never will.

Security perhaps (if you're sufficiently careful how you use it), but I would have thought stability was also pretty important if you're thinking in terms of lifetimes. Bitcoin doesn't show much sign of offering that.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#140

Post by natch » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:42 PM UTC

The writing in this article feels like an algorithmic rewrite of content from elsewhere, hosted on an ad farming site. While the topic is interesting, I wouldn't feel bad if this sort of site was not ranked this high on HN.