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

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

#211

Post by jayd16 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:56 PM UTC

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

Yes, with POS aren't we just back to a (now programatically enforced!) cabal of bankers that control the money system?

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

#212

Post by rawtxapp » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

mlcrypto wrote: post #205

If you're reading this 10 years from now look how clueless everyone in this thread is. Everyone here still thinks BTC is not even the best crypto let alone the best asset in the world. If 50k isn't enough to convince them, nothing will. Hope you're enjoying $1M+ BTC prices in 2031.

They will probably look at it like we look at: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852

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

#213

Post by DennisP » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

mavhc wrote: post #24

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.

Which proof of stake systems currently exist and work well?

Ethereum currently has a working proof-of-stake network. As far as I know it's the most scalable version currently live, capable of millions of nodes without any sort of delegation. Right now it has over 100,000 nodes and has run perfectly since it launched on Dec. 1.

However, so far it doesn't have users other than the stakers themselves. It's not all that hard to transition everything over, it's just that it's a live $200 billion economy and they're being really careful about it. Should happen next year though.

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

#214

Post by whywhywhywhy » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

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.

>I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has a way way bigger net positive impact on the environment than you

Does his impact offset the pollution caused by the GPUs running full throttle in every one of the millions of Xboxes?

Or is GPU use only a bad thing when it makes people easy money and it suddenly becomes fine when the same processor is used to render RDR2 so someone can pretend to be a cowboy.

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

#215

Post by cwhiz » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

A single Bitcoin represents 100,000,000 satoshi. Bitcoin is not scarce. We could stop mining today, and do a X:1 split every few years to keep inflation in check.

Mining is all about greed.

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

#216

Post by nelsontodd » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

pluc wrote: post #200

nelsontodd wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

His status as rich tech billionaire doesn't make a difference unless he is making arguments that are new or interesting. And he isn't. We've all been hearing the environment argument for years now. Plus, there is obviously an argument to be made that he has had a negative overall influence on the world & therefore shouldn't be trusted.

What is your argument for Bill Gates having a negative overall influence on the world?

I don't want to hash them out, plenty of arguments from the leftists or linux people for example. Free software, exploitation of workers. Whatever. The argument itself is arbitrary, I'm just saying that he's a controversial figure

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

#217

Post by newsclues » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:57 PM UTC

wbobeirne wrote: post #98

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.

What defines a currency being "better" than another? Is it number of transactions? Is it acceptance among merchants? Is it low fees? Is it stability in purchasing power? Is it likelihood that there will be a fatal flaw in the system that causes financial loss? Every project has its own strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to argue that Bitcoin isn't the best on many of those measures. It's all about which of them…

For many online commenters the quality of a crypto currency is directly correlated to their portfolio

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

#218

Post by awb » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

throwaway20875 wrote: post #131

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.

Sure, but Bitcoin's wealth and access is also very concentrated. If you replace USD with BTC, you still have a power imbalance, just a slightly different one.

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

#219

Post by rfd4sgmk8u » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

ohgodplsno wrote: post #5

Still no valid usecase found for Bitcoin, aside from being a number-is-green-and-goes-up currency. Lightning is unused. TX fees are stupidly high. We're dedicating ASICs powered by entire coal plants to mining bitcoin. And before you, commenter to this post, say anything, no, your Eth/Doge/Xrp/Monero/Tether/scam-ipo-of-the-day is not more valuable. NFTs are worthless. No, being distributed does not make your favorite…

I'm sorry you have not found a use case. I assure you one exists, as myself and many other folks have found it.

No, I won't share my use case with you. You have to find it for yourself. There is plenty written about it if you have an open mind.

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

#220

Post by saalweachter » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

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.

You know what actually bothers me the most about all crypto-currencies?

None of them are actually money, like in the paper-or-gold-coin sense. They're all ledgers.

The thing about money is that I can hand it to someone. Possession of the money is possession of the money and third parties don't need to get involved in every transaction. I can hand someone dollars and take a sandwich and walk away, transaction done.

The problem with a digital currency, of course, is that when you hand someone a sequence of bits, they don't go away from you, so you can hand that same sequence of bits to another person.

The "solution" people came up with to this problem was to not solve the problem, and instead solve a different problem, how to have a distributed ledger.

Which is like, neat and all. But also infuriating. We don't have crypto-currencies, we just have crypto-banks.