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

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

#741

Post by HeadsUpHigh » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:41 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #38

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.

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

Assuming a simple PoS system of more stake=more blocks validated achieving a 51% attack is as capital intensive as it would be on a PoW system of the same size. So as far as the most basic notion of security is concerned there's no difference.

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

#742

Post by HeadsUpHigh » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:43 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #538

runarberg wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still asking out of desire to learn: How has it been shown to be flawed? With what kind of experiments? Which are the flaws? How to they manifest them self (e.g. how could you exploit them with PoS but not with PoW)?

One problem: You fire up your blockchain software and it reaches out over the internet to find other servers and ask them if they have a copy of the blockchain. But how does in know which copy is the real one and not one cooked up by someone like me showing I own half the coins? With proof of work you can choose the one with the most work in it and that's hard to fake as the real bitcoin blockchain has billions of do…

What if you just accept the one that's coming from the node with the most stake on it? Or a consensus across multiple nodes with high stake on them?

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

#743

Post by wbobeirne » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

PhilosAccnting wrote: post #736

SavantIdiot wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's any fiat currency, though. But if you think not being backed by something tangible is bad, wait until you hear about 51% attacks... https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp Kinda like you waking up to a brand-new bank account, with proof! The only thing stopping 51% on BitCoin is the cost of mounting one: were it a smaller crypto currency, it would be at risk. (I'm pretty sure I got that right, but I…

I'm probably speaking _way_ out of my league here, but I imagine it's somehow spoofable, kinda like how you can generate fake MACs or IPs, so why not? One terrifying/beautiful element of tech is that where there's a will there's a way!

It's spoofable in the same way that a hash collision or guessing a password is "spoofable", given infinite time and / or energy you could. But the chain would move on while you're generating your spoof, and you're limited by the constraints of the physical world and your available computing power.

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

#744

Post by kajumix » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:46 PM UTC

Two google searches take as much energy as it'd take to boil one cup of water. Online porn consumes 6 million kWh [1] yearly. We ignore areas where energy cost is diffuse, which is not the case with bitcoin that is so objectively and transparently measurable. If others find value in online porn, TikTok, air travel for fun, production of processed food and subsequent health crises, long hot showers, and methane-producing cattle, regardless of how frivolous or wasteful I find them, it's not my place to question them. It's just free people choosing to pay for things they value, and all of it takes energy.

Fiat currencies and their forced entrenchment has a giant carbon footprint with its wasteful banking system, militaries and layered machinery to ensure its value is never challenged. The FX market trades about $6 trillion DAILY, with an infrastructure that doesn't produce any real goods and services. It'd be fair to compare the energy cost of bitcoin with the legacy fiat system, but how do you even begin to measure the latter. We live in an artificially over financialized world, where a big chunk of knowledge workers is not engaged productively. Bitcoin may in fact become the great definancialization that would boil the system down to essentials [2].

Nic Carter does a great job addressing the energy concerns of bitcoin [3]. Consider specially the idea of the non-fungibility of energy and how BTC miners absorb energy that'd otherwise be curtailed. I know it will sound crazy and totally non-intuitive but there is an argument that bitcoin might end up being the biggest incentivizer of clean, cheap energy, and in the end be a net positive for the environment.

[1]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/12/the-e... [2]: https://unchained-capital.com/blog/bitcoin-is-the-great-defi... [3]: https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co...

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

#745

Post by rocho » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:53 PM UTC

xur17 wrote: post #637

jedberg wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefit does it supply to humanity? I can think of plenty of uses for a distributed ledger, but what is the use of Bitcoin that can't be done some other way?

Is there another way to send money over the internet that doesn't involve a third party?

The blockchain IS a third party. It's maintained by other entities.

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

#746

Post by celticninja » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:54 PM UTC

xkjkls wrote: post #728

celticninja wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would. In a zombie (or other type) apocalypse dollars have zero value. You can't eat them or use them as fuel. Gold may have value as a medium of exchange but it would quickly revert to barter system for food, fuel etc. What good is selling food for dollars if you can't spend those dollars next week? Better to swap the food for another good which can be used or exchanged.

Gold is a terrible medium of exchange. People would continue using dollars for a long time because they still exist

Just existing doesn't give them value. After an apocalypse event, even with some sort of US military and US government functioning dollars will lose their fungibility quickly. What could happen is an increased supply of them e.g unprotected banks/vaults could be robbed. But this would have the effect of making more dollars available, so although they exist they are not scarce, if they are not scarce then why would I swap them for 10gallons of fuel? ATMs would be easily looted and are widely located.

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

#747

Post by zacmps » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:56 PM UTC

nprz wrote: post #696

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Crypto is 'backed' by the sunk cost of the energy used to mine it.

We can (and China already does) use energy that would otherwise be wasted to mine bitcoin: https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1369007894969122816?s...

This only holds water if you completely disconnect supply from demand, which is obviously ridiculous.

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

#748

Post by terse_malvolio » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 8:59 PM UTC

silentsea90 wrote: post #469

warkdarrior wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GP's point is that even if we switch to Bitcoin completely, there will still be a hierarchy of financial players, with regular people at the bottom, just like in the current system. There are ~150MM people working in US, so let's say that only these 150MM need to perform financial transactions (get paid, pay others, etc.). How many of these 150MM will be direct participants in Bitcoin? If not all of them are mine…

The problem isn't with US banks but central banks, and it isn't with concentration of wealth but confiscation of wealth through money printing We very well might have Coinbase, BlockFi etc. act as crypto banks, and BTC whales as the new rich. That's reward for their work and belief. What do you think is the threat vector from BTC miners? The protocol nullifies such threats. What would be bad is if a central authority…

Coinbase is not decoupled from government

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

#749

Post by throwaway20875 » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 9:00 PM UTC

ethagnawl wrote: post #567

throwaway20875 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> The primary goals of the [Gates] foundation are to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty across the globe, and to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

What are you saying? That we should take the mission statement of the Gates foundation at face value and as something that represents the motivations behind everything he does and says?

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

#750

Post by ethagnawl » Mon, Mar 08, 2021, 9:03 PM UTC

throwaway20875 wrote: post #749

ethagnawl wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The primary goals of the [Gates] foundation are to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty across the globe, and to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology in the U.S. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundat...

What are you saying? That we should take the mission statement of the Gates foundation at face value and as something that represents the motivations behind everything he does and says?

I'm saying that the Gates Foundation is _fixing the power imbalances that are the root cause of his supposed gripe_.