Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

technologyelevation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 862 posts

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

#171

Post by whoisninja »

tester756 wrote: post #152
whoisninja wrote: post #74

Steve Balmer and Bill also used to call Linux a cancer but look now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-07/hackers-b... their OS filled with malicious stuff and who knows what kind of backdoors is when exploited by hackers, they blame it on China rather than taking responsibility of putting users at risk with vulnerable OS

"Linux is a cancer" - opinion "Bitcoin is bad for the planet" - fact(?)

you're asking or deciding? if you know for sure, even then it doesn't matter if Bill Gates agrees or disagrees with you?

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

#172

Post by nelsontodd »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
nelsontodd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free. You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force. Which do you find less harmful? Edit: I should clarify. I am saying that the status of the USD as a reserve currency has led to lots of US military action.

why present a false dichotomy? it's more like you choose bitcoin mining and military force or just military force

I think a lot of military force stems from maintaining USD hegemony. If that wasn't a thing I think the world would be safer.

Although I admit I am not sure. It's a complicated conclusion & a bold claim

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

#173

Post by rodiger »

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #113
runarberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could anyone explain to me how proof of stake works (as opposed to proof of work), and how it is better? Has proof of stake been proven to be as robust as proof of work? EDIT: The wikipedia article is easy to find[1]. However it is really short, looks incomplete, and has a lot of “citation needed” after each point. So I would rather ask on HN. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake

Kind of funny the goal of crypto was a total new, decentralized, democratic system, and what we end up (to solve the scale issue), is yet another class system where you can vote only in proportion to your wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification

Mining isn't exactly a fair shake either... at least in PoS more network participants are even able to "vote".

Staking better aligns incentives when compared to mining and most other alternatives.

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

#174

Post by cies »

Avalaxy wrote: post #128
cies wrote: post #65

Billionaire says XYZ bad for environment. I cannot help thinking: what a hypocrite. Poor people are much better for the environment than rich. Not even considering private-jet flying super rich. I think BG has no business telling others what's good/bad for the planet.

I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has a way way bigger net positive impact on the environment than you, or almost any of us here. Just because he is rich doesn't mean he has a net negative impact. Rich people like him have the money and power to make a significant change and do more good than a 1000 of us combined possibly could.

We hold different beliefs then :) You dont know me, but we know he has a private jet. The amount of cabon a single trip with a private jet is insane. No matter how much car you drive your whole life, you wont offset that.

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

Qwertious wrote: post #168
whoisninja wrote: post #74

Steve Balmer and Bill also used to call Linux a cancer but look now: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-07/hackers-b... their OS filled with malicious stuff and who knows what kind of backdoors is when exploited by hackers, they blame it on China rather than taking responsibility of putting users at risk with vulnerable OS

By this same logic, we can ignore Bill Gates saying COVID is bad. Or that literal cancer is bad, for that matter. I don't see how this logic is useful.

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #113
runarberg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could anyone explain to me how proof of stake works (as opposed to proof of work), and how it is better? Has proof of stake been proven to be as robust as proof of work? EDIT: The wikipedia article is easy to find[1]. However it is really short, looks incomplete, and has a lot of “citation needed” after each point. So I would rather ask on HN. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_stake

Kind of funny the goal of crypto was a total new, decentralized, democratic system, and what we end up (to solve the scale issue), is yet another class system where you can vote only in proportion to your wealth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_qualification

This is a massive and common misunderstanding. Publishing a block is NOT voting on its validity. Every node, regardless of stake accrued 'votes' (the correct word is 'chooses') independently of the validity of blocks just like in Bitcoin.

Blockchains that allow protocol changes via votes are an option, and how you quantify votes is a parameter, but PoS is not tied to being a government token, and 'votes' on forks (its really not a vote as both protocols exist after a fork) are made by large and small holders alike. It has nothing to do with amount of currency owned.

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

#177

Post by cies »

akudha wrote: post #106
cies wrote: post #65

Billionaire says XYZ bad for environment. I cannot help thinking: what a hypocrite. Poor people are much better for the environment than rich. Not even considering private-jet flying super rich. I think BG has no business telling others what's good/bad for the planet.

poop people :)

oops fixed.

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

#179

Post by imachine1980 »

i agree i live in a 40 million country whit less energy consumption(argentina), to solve a volatility and dependency problem whit an asset which is more volatile and ASS controlled (china's bans bitcon and the buy, the jpm is bad then buy it, regulation from eu and other), and isn't anonymous, we have billion dollars companies focus on tracks bitcoin transactions, and regular stock wallets tracks u.

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

#180

Post by DennisP »

knuthsat wrote: post #149
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.

Unfortunately, there really aren't that many better. Full transaction privacy (addresses not visible to public + amounts not visible to public) does not exist in any of the top 10. + offline transactions should be possible (allowing sync with the chain whenever), but also I do not think any have that. A good crypto-currency is like cash, with a nice physical gauge theory (allowing offline transactions) guaranteeing s…

I'm having trouble seeing how you could have offline transactions that prevent doublespending. Could you expand on "nice physical gauge theory (allowing offline transactions)?"

If you have a good idea here, it might be possible to implement as a second layer on a chain with smart contracts.

Post reply on HN