111–120 of 162 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So is "free energy" and "cancer cure". Of course Bitcoin's intangibility has tangible benefits this very second, those others do not.
Nuclear reactions and chemical formulas are technically tangible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nuclear reactions and chemical formulas are technically tangible.
uh huh, but their tangibility has as much to do with randomly modeling them as a proof of work in a crypto currency - as every potential tangible thing you can spend the currency on. That is to say: none.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you think financial institutions, and skyscrapers they inhabit, would not exist in a BTC-powered world? People won't want to use their BTC to invest in companies on the stock market, trade commodities futures, or issue loans?
That's a bad example but one thing that wouldn't happen is a government manipulating its currency to finance wars.
Seems like humanity has engaged in war on a pretty regular basis since long before people decided to put their trust in paper money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At retail banking... No I don't think they can more effectively manage my grandmothers retirement account. This requires people, and locations. Software isn't going to solve this problem. The only way I think this will be solved is by becoming very similar to what already exists.
Maybe not strictly software, although it's clear that the range of what's possible to do in software is only getting wider. It still doesn't preclude from involving people, and improving the quality of service.
Yes you could create a more energy efficient bank, but that is orthogonal to that bank using bitcoin. Many people have tried, but most have failed. Those that succeed are generally acquired and the bigger banks tend to (albeit slowly) integrate those efficiencies.
The post I was replying to originally was citing an article claiming that the energy costs of holding dollars and gold was higher then bitcoin. I was showing how tallying the total energy used by global banks was a false equivalency as much of what a bank does has no direct equivalent in the numbers given for Bitcoin.
Point of clarity: Bitcoin transactions take negligible energy to produce and validate. It's block production that's energy-intensive, and it's the same regardless of how big or full blocks are. Like any energy-intensive industry that could operate profitably via fossil fuel consumption, mining should be regulated to only use green energy. No different than power production and consumption today.
"Negligible energy" to produce a transaction is not correct. Miners are willing to sell transactions that cost enormous heaps of money to mint because the coin itself "has value".
[1] https://news.bitcoin.com/the-bitcoin-network-now-consumes-7-...
[2] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/transactions-per-second
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How so - by central authority changes?
For certain cases of attacks, yes with minority forks, and by destroying the attackers stake in other cases, see the section titled "Attacks are much easier to recover from in proof of stake" here: https://vitalik.ca/general/2020/11/06/pos2020.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it's just a simple stunt. Apparently, the onboard computer on the latest Teslas is capable of mining BTC profitably at the current prices (allegedly). It would be amusing to have cars mine when idle/plugged in, or better yet have any unsold inventory mining 24/7 (since electricity can be written off as operational expenses). I wouldn't put it past Elon.
> the onboard computer on the latest Teslas is capable of mining BTC profitably I would be interested to learn more about that. I thought the bulk of the Autopilot compute power is in dense neural network inference which wouldn't be any good for SHA hashing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh huh, but their tangibility has as much to do with randomly modeling them as a proof of work in a crypto currency - as every potential tangible thing you can spend the currency on. That is to say: none.
Physics is more tangible than mathematics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Physics is more tangible than mathematics.
ah, I see the problem now. You should open with that line in all your exchanges, you'd get fewer people trying to explain to you how you're wrong.
What a ridiculous headline. How do you spend clean car credits, exactly? Tesla has a market cap of almost a trillion dollars.
You sell them to other companies for money and then spend that money? You cannot, however, spend market cap.