241–250 of 394 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Normal banks already do that
> Normal banks already do that 70% of El Salvadorians don't have a bank account [1]. [1] https://datacatalog.worldbank.org/dataset/el-salvador-global...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, that is completely inaccurate. > First of all, with current parameters that would mean that you need a good few hundred years to process a few seconds of world-wide transactions. If you settle everything onchain, maybe (I haven't done the math on this, so I honestly don't know), but storing every transaction for a cup of coffee in a datastore that persists across tens of thousands of computers for the rest of t…
But the total amount of data stored in the Lightning network is even more absurd. Not only do we store "A has paid B 1 SAT" for all time, we actually store "A is paying C 1SAT for B; C is paying D 1SAT for B; E is paying F 1SAT for B; F is paying B 1SAT".
A lightning channel does require an onchain bitcoin transaction both to be opened and closed, but while open it supports unlimited transactions within the channel while it is open without increasing the onchain storage burden on the network validation nodes further beyond the two transactions to open and close the channel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Such an ignorant comment. There are hundreds of millions Bitcoin users globally, and only a very small fraction of them are criminals of any kind. And let's ignore the actual criminals who legally counterfeit US dollars to finance war all around the world.
> And let's ignore the actual criminals who legally counterfeit US dollars to finance war all around the world. I've not heard of a legal counterfeiter. How's that work?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy use is not energy source. There's been no full accounting of the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining, only its use. Much of it is done using geothermal or other renewable sources. (edit, incorrect) That El Salvador is adopting it refutes your second claim. Then there's the lightning network which increases the transaction throughput. Everything is going to be okay.
Using renewable energy still takes that opportunity away from other users who end up stuck with X% of their energy use provided by non-renewables, so the real carbon footprint is still similar.
This would be true only if electrical capacity were completely inelastic. It is not. Electrical capacity is relatively slow to respond to changes in demand, sure, but it does respond.
Consider the scale of the increase in electrical capacity that will be needed to fully move the US alone to EVs. That change will not have a hard cost cap, either - people are willing to pay quite a bit to operate their automobiles, and the current cost to operate an EV is substantially less than the cost of operating a similar ICE vehicle. Bitcoin mining does have a hard cost cap: ([Bitcoin price] * 6.25 + [Bitcoin price] * [~10 minutes of transaction fees]). In about 2024, that 6.25 will drop to 3.125.
Ultimately Bitcoin mining is driven by economic forces, and those same forces are the same that control the scale of power generation worldwide.
You can see Bitcoin’s energy use as being used only to secure the network; I see it as securing the network and driving incentives for the development and expansion of electrical infrastructure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Energy use is not energy source. There's been no full accounting of the carbon footprint of bitcoin mining, only its use. Much of it is done using geothermal or other renewable sources. (edit, incorrect) That El Salvador is adopting it refutes your second claim. Then there's the lightning network which increases the transaction throughput. Everything is going to be okay.
> Energy use is not energy source I’ll go a step further - Bitcoin’s energy use is centralized around the cheapest sources due to economic forces. If renewables are cheaper at scale than fossil fuels, Bitcoin’s energy use could in fact become a net positive for the world. To put it another way, the profitability of mining is directly proportional to the cost of electricity compared to the global average. This should…
I divested from all PoW coins except ETH in expectation that PoS will be completed soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Is AlgoDex not working? According to their site[0] no, but now they do have a testnet demo. Looking at the demo it's Order Book, not AMM which further makes me think that AMMs are still impossible there while Order Book-style can always be done with some centralization. The docs are sadly one tiny page that has no technical details so I won't dig further. >What would be the purpose of rushing out tools and smart con…
>Cool, if I see them working how I see similar dapps working As if installing a custom browser plugin and managing a wallet thru the browser is convenient for any average user. Lofty.AI is far better than the current crap-dapps workflow. Add the token to your Algo wallet, buy them on Lofty with CC or bank account. Done. >Are they? I see devs that try and fail to build there I literally just provided two HN startups t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Cool, if I see them working how I see similar dapps working As if installing a custom browser plugin and managing a wallet thru the browser is convenient for any average user. Lofty.AI is far better than the current crap-dapps workflow. Add the token to your Algo wallet, buy them on Lofty with CC or bank account. Done. >Are they? I see devs that try and fail to build there I literally just provided two HN startups t…
By see them working I mean have a working dapp on the mainnet I can use. Not a few static pages and a waitlist.
Best part is the President trolling the IMF on Twitter: https://twitter.com/nayibbukele/status/1435263064933285898
I'm really interested that they chose BTC as opposed to making their own, which as I understand it isn't super hard to do? Tying to an already-established commodity, and an exceptionally volatile one at that, seems wildly irresponsible to me, but I'm very VERY under-educated in this area
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. That would only be true if storing and/or transporting energy was cheap or easy.
Yes, that is a factor. Other factors include abandoned coal fire plants being restarted for mining. The question is not if there is a factor that is positive, but whether the positives outweigh the negatives. Every source I have seen is confident they do not.
The claim that consumption of renewable energy is equivalent to consumption of fossil fuels, because that renewable energy would have otherwise offset fossil fuel consumption I don't agree with though.