61–70 of 109 posts
(There's a lot written about this. For example: https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/02/23/new-york-set...)
The energy cost of mining will always be bid up to approximately the net value of the reward. So as the price of Bitcoin goes up, so does the mining effort. If the price drops, the energy expended would drop as well. It's important to note that the cost of energy its priced to is more or less the global lowest cost of energy. No one mines Bitcoin in Los Angeles during the summer. Bitcoin is a way to convert cheap or…
Is there somewhere where I can get good data on where the electricity for Bitcoin mining comes from? The article itself says this:
> And the electricity the Bitcoin miners use overwhelmingly comes from polluting sources.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. The faster others mine, the faster you must do so as well, if you want to keep making money. But Bitcoin's design results in that the increased power doesn't really do anything for the network. It doesn't make it faster,…
> The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Citation needed. The legacy financial system has a huge infrastructure behind it to secure and maintain it (buildings, transport, security, ...). I would assume the US Petrodollar alone probably exceeds Bitcoin's consumption of resources (I don't have any sources though). > Even Bitcoin Cash, which copies the same stupid design is a more…
For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of it.
The energy cost of mining will always be bid up to approximately the net value of the reward. So as the price of Bitcoin goes up, so does the mining effort. If the price drops, the energy expended would drop as well. It's important to note that the cost of energy its priced to is more or less the global lowest cost of energy. No one mines Bitcoin in Los Angeles during the summer. Bitcoin is a way to convert cheap or…
No, the reason bitcoin has increased in price is speculation of future increases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. The faster others mine, the faster you must do so as well, if you want to keep making money. But Bitcoin's design results in that the increased power doesn't really do anything for the network. It doesn't make it faster,…
> The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Citation needed. The legacy financial system has a huge infrastructure behind it to secure and maintain it (buildings, transport, security, ...). I would assume the US Petrodollar alone probably exceeds Bitcoin's consumption of resources (I don't have any sources though). > Even Bitcoin Cash, which copies the same stupid design is a more…
A BTC transaction is currently estimated to take 821 kWh. That's ridiculous.
> BCH is a scam. Not because they assume that the removal of the block size limit comes without any costs, but because it regularly splits after influential but narcissistic 'leaders' attempt to grab more power and because its community continues to justify deceitful tactics to promote BCH and trick people into buying BCH when they expected Bitcoin.
I don't care about any of that, actually. I'm mercilessly meritocratic in this regard, and in my case, merit == processing transactions at a low cost.
Whatever nonsense goes on in the community, the drama regarding branding or whatnot isn't of my concern. My interest in crypto is extremely minor and focused straight on the "cash" type of usage. Whoever can provide that earns my interest, and I hold no loyalty whatsoever. BTC had my interest back before it bumped into the block limit, and at that exact instant, lost it.
The people that write these articles haven't the faintest idea of the protocol and repeat the same tired arguments over and over again. Why does Bitcoin have to justify its energy usage when the legacy financial system does not? Who becomes the arbiter of what tech or sector deserves to draw on the grid?
The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. The faster others mine, the faster you must do so as well, if you want to keep making money. But Bitcoin's design results in that the increased power doesn't really do anything for the network. It doesn't make it faster,…
When the difficulty rate rises the network is more difficult to be attacked. The upper limit to the difficulty rate is the point at which the miners can be profitable. We want the network to be as secure as possible. Though, I would say that we also want the network to be as efficient as possible (ie larger block size for more tx per block) like in Bitcoin Cash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Citation needed. The legacy financial system has a huge infrastructure behind it to secure and maintain it (buildings, transport, security, ...). I would assume the US Petrodollar alone probably exceeds Bitcoin's consumption of resources (I don't have any sources though). > Even Bitcoin Cash, which copies the same stupid design is a more…
Ah, but until demonstrated otherwise, the legacy financial system also supports Bitcoin. It's what makes it possible to create the goods and services that people want to buy with Bitcoins, and the electricity to do the computations. We don't even know what society would look like without our present-day economic infrastructure. For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of…
You can have a closed loop of exchanging Bitcoin for goods and services without any legacy financial system involved. Just because you prefer to exchange your Bitcoins for your local currency does not imply that the cost of maintaining your local currency should be added on top of Bitcoins own.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there's one very real way that complex financial instruments disappear in a huff. Bitcoin has only existed for less than 15 years. There's no indication that it's invincible to, say, a bubble burst and rapid permanent devaluation besides it having not happened yet. If in 86 years this is still the case, you could maybe convince me I won't see it in my lifetime, but just barely.
I mean, it's going to do its thing whether you are convinced or not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, it's going to do its thing whether you are convinced or not.
No, a swarm of autonomous actors in a decentralized system will continue to support it so long as it's profitable and legal (or at the very least, easy enough to get away with). Those are two huge assumptions for e.g. Bitcoin which has very little inherent value as a tool and is a relatively fragile as a value store. Should the internet be fragmented along national/political lines, I imagine BTC will lose most of its…