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

Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

m.dw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 276 posts

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#201

Post by kaba0 »

simondotau wrote: post #150
rvz wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except they still own a ton of Bitcoin No where in my sentence suggested they sold all of it. > so I don’t see how selling a tiny bit of it could be described as “to perfection” Telsa did not lose any money from their BTC investment and are still up >40%. At that time, they (and others on Twitter) caused a run up in the crypto markets to drive the BTC price up to new all time highs and got out a large profit even b…

Why is it clever to tank an asset that they own? How did the 12% drop benefit Tesla? You're not making any sense.

Perhaps because only that amount could be sold for a good enough price? Someone has to buy it and a sudden increase in supply will drive the price down, that amount is not a single transaction with fixed price.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#203

Post by arss »

pinkybanana wrote: post #170
mFixman wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Dogecoin has exactly the same energy spending incentives as Bitcoin. Does it? I thought that Bitcoin was particularly bad because block sizes were small, so there's a big incentive to mine and get mining fees. Dogecoin is still wasteful, but it's an order of magnitude less than Bitcoin.

> I thought that Bitcoin was particularly bad because block sizes were small, so there's a big incentive to mine and get mining fees. No. Doesn't make sense. Miners get rewarded for spending energy in all PoW coins. I don't think details such as block size matters. Dogecoin BTW as well has the 1MB block limit, their block time is just smaller (1 minute). However dogecoin has quite small amount of transactions compare…

Dogecoin is incredibly more efficient for kilowatt per hash than bitcoin. Of the very popular older coins only XRP is more efficient.

https://www.trgdatacenters.com/most-environment-friendly-cry...

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#204

Post by andbberger »

mrtksn wrote: post #95

What I don't get is, why people are talking about environmental impact per transaction. Transactions or not, the computers are churning constantly to solve the useless function that would produce the hash with the most 0s in it. It really doesn't have anything to do with transactions(the fees are only a fraction of the profits). The energy impact would be precisely correlated to the fiat price since the miners will b…

It's not a fundamental thing it's just that looking at the per-transaction energy cost really puts things in perspective. And 500kWh is hard to comprehend so I like to put it in perspective by comparing it to locomotives. An F40PH, which is a very common American passenger locomotive as seen on Caltrain, Amtrak, Metra and the MBTA puts out about 2.4MW at full blast. So, just under 5 transactions per hour, per locomotive. It's staggering.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#205

Post by jiriknesl »

Isinlor wrote: post #122
serf wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I mean, isn’t this exactly the behaviour we want to encourage? I want to encourage 'corporate flexibility and social accountability'. I do not want to encourage market-whale-individuals to attempt one-person pump-and-dumps on small(ish) global markets and further market opportunism & manipulation. Personally I believe that the decision has little to do with environmental impact; I think that the btc opportunity is b…

All crypto I know about is useful !only! for market speculation. Bitcoin is especially broken and useless for anything. Unless you want to pay 100$ transaction cost to by ice-cream at grocery store.

I use crypto (and mainly Bitcoin) to pay for three years every month now. Average fee over those years is more like $1. In comparison with $20 transaction fees my bank asks when I transact for example from EU to SouthAm, zero hassle and no paperwork when sending to countries with trade embargo, I must say, Bitcoin is golden.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#206

Post by esjeon »

johnnycerberus wrote: post #159

Same people calling for decentralization, unregulated practices and absolute freemarket are now calling for regulation and accusing Elon of market manipulation. This can't get any better, I'm having a lot of fun reading Reddit and Hackernews. Good job, Elon! You demonstrated once again that you are a talented businessman. It's so easy to make money when there are so many naive people around. Thanks for the lesson.

Anything that makes money (for me) is good. Capitalism at its finest. Cheers.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#207

Post by hilios »

block_dagger wrote: post #177
Isinlor wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All crypto I know about is useful !only! for market speculation. Bitcoin is especially broken and useless for anything. Unless you want to pay 100$ transaction cost to by ice-cream at grocery store.

BTC maximalists argue that it’s a better store of value than gold due to portability, divisibility, durability, and scarcity. The theory is that it will be used to settle inter-bank transactions once it is widely adopted by institutions.

>The theory is that it will be used to settle inter-bank transactions once it is widely adopted by institutions.

Banks have absolutely not need of a proof of work scheme like Bitcoin, them switching to a system with the power requirements of BTC seems highly unlikely.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#208

Post by eru »

serf wrote: post #87
Negitivefrags wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Tesla announced the initial move they received a huge amount of push back for the environmental concerns. And it didn’t look good for an EV company of all things. There is a trend I’ve seen of a company making a decison, everyone hating on them for it, then they reverse the decision, and they are still criticised. If a company turns around and reverses a decision citing the very reasons they were criticised for…

>I mean, isn’t this exactly the behaviour we want to encourage? I want to encourage 'corporate flexibility and social accountability'. I do not want to encourage market-whale-individuals to attempt one-person pump-and-dumps on small(ish) global markets and further market opportunism & manipulation. Personally I believe that the decision has little to do with environmental impact; I think that the btc opportunity is b…

> I do not want to encourage market-whale-individuals to attempt one-person pump-and-dumps on small(ish) global markets and further market opportunism & manipulation.

Eh, no innocent by-standers get hurt when someone 'dumps-and-pumps' bitcoin.

And if you want to teach people a lesson, the higher the profile of the 'pumper-and-dumper', the better.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#209

Post by karlkloss »

Moodles wrote: post #149
Negitivefrags wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Tesla announced the initial move they received a huge amount of push back for the environmental concerns. And it didn’t look good for an EV company of all things. There is a trend I’ve seen of a company making a decison, everyone hating on them for it, then they reverse the decision, and they are still criticised. If a company turns around and reverses a decision citing the very reasons they were criticised for…

People would take back the criticism of market manipulation if Tesla donated the profits made from BTC to environmental charities.

That doesn't make it any better, fraud for charity is still fraud.

Re: Tesla no longer accepts Bitcoin due to climate impact

#210

Post by DharmaPolice »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #46
arcticbull wrote: post #10

So far, Elon/Tesla: 1. Bought a bunch of Bitcoin. 2. Announced they were going to accept Bitcoin, sending the price up. 3. Sold a bunch of Bitcoin to pad out otherwise poor earnings, citing their goal of "testing liquidity of the market." 4. Announced they were going to stop accepting Bitcoin, sending the price plummeting. As though he didn't know the environmental impact a week ago? As though he didn't check for liq…

When Tesla announced the initial move they received a huge amount of push back for the environmental concerns. And it didn’t look good for an EV company of all things. There is a trend I’ve seen of a company making a decison, everyone hating on them for it, then they reverse the decision, and they are still criticised. If a company turns around and reverses a decision citing the very reasons they were criticised for…

>I mean, isn’t this exactly the behaviour we want to encourage?

Kind of. If I announce I'm going to start beating my wife and then say "After feedback, I've decided not to do this" then I don't expect to be voted man of the year. And yes, this is an extreme example but for the sort of people who get angry on Twitter the issue they're getting mad at is an extreme one (whatever it is).

I think reversing a bad decision is admirable when it wasn't already obvious at the time of making it that it was bad. If new information comes to light that they couldn't have reasonably known originally then of course, that's fine. But mostly the new information seems to be "We knew this would piss some people off but we thought we could get away with it."

Post reply on HN