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

Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

cointelegraph.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#181

Post by axlee »

keymone wrote: post #158
MereInterest wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got it, so you're separating out the energy requirements into two buckets, then pretending that those two are unrelated. I agree that in general, processing transactions is not an energy-intensive task. This is why traditional payment processors with trusted nodes are able to do so efficiently. In the case of cryptocurrency, where the assumption is that all nodes are inherently untrustworthy, the resource requirement…

> When people say "transactions cost X amount to process", they mean "in the current state of bitcoin", not in the past when there were very few transaction validators there are only so many miners (and so much energy spent) because security of bitcoin is what gives it value. so when people say "transactions cost X amount to process" they are saying something non-sensical, because it's not transactions that cost , it…

> because it's not transactions that cost, it's security of those transactions.

Logically wrong, but let's follow the reasoning.

Let's assume Bitcoin transactions were indeed not secure (and thus, according to you, costing little energy).

- Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions still be considered "Bitcoin transactions" in the way that we know them? - Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions fulfill the requirements that Bitcoin has in place for itself? - Would an unsafe-but-cheap Bitcoin still be a great option in your eyes to replace the worldwide financial system?

If you agree with all these statements and their corollaries, I can follow you in saying "Bitcoin transactions do not cost energy".

You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well. You cannot just summon it away and pretend it is unrelated to the nature of Bitcoin transactions itself, when in fact it is one of its largest selling points.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#182

Post by axlee »

nathias wrote: post #124
axlee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remind me the carbon footprint and transaction costs of Bitcoin again, and compare that to the costs from institutional payment gateways?

BTC carbon footprint is smaller than USA government's

How is that statement supposed to contribute to the conversation? We all know that Bitcoin's consumption and environmental impact is absolutely massive for what is essentially - currently - an online casino.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#183

Post by keymone »

axlee wrote: post #181
keymone wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When people say "transactions cost X amount to process", they mean "in the current state of bitcoin", not in the past when there were very few transaction validators there are only so many miners (and so much energy spent) because security of bitcoin is what gives it value. so when people say "transactions cost X amount to process" they are saying something non-sensical, because it's not transactions that cost , it…

> because it's not transactions that cost, it's security of those transactions. Logically wrong, but let's follow the reasoning. Let's assume Bitcoin transactions were indeed not secure (and thus, according to you, costing little energy). - Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions still be considered "Bitcoin transactions" in the way that we know them? - Would these unsafe-but-cheap transactions fulfill the requirem…

> You are creating a false dichotomy: security is an integral component of bitcoin transactions, and if security costs, transactions cost as well

that would be true if only on-chain settlements would count as transactions in BTC ecosystem. there are more ways to exchange BTC with security landing anywhere between very low and on-chain settlement.

thing is, that it's not even transactions that have security, it's blocks. energy is spent to make sure that it's expensive to override/rollback blocks. and it's true that blocks exist to assert ordering of on-chain settlements, but it's not true to claim that there is 1-1 correspondence between on-chain settlements and transactions.

each on-chain settlement can embed trillions of bitcoin transactions (in colloquial sense, exchanges of an asset). what does that do to your "energy per tx" metric?

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#184

Post by axlee »

the_cramer wrote: post #81
dexen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the carbon footprint of Bitcoin Still less than the carbon footprint of the people running our current fiat-based financial infrastructure. It's the bankers who have jets, mansions and yachts, not the bitcoiners. Edit to clarify: Not that riches is somehow "wrong" - it's just that with major value comes major costs, which in practice mean major energy usage .

Please take this from a guy who is not in any way a finance/economy expert: Why does the currency have anything to do with the wealth of the bankers. Bitcoin is, as far as i know, a fiat currency too. The value depends on the believe (demand-supply) of the people. You accepting it as means of payment gives it value. The reason bankers and others have yachts are interests, Investmens, tax avoidance schemes and so on.…

These people have been convinced by the same yacht-owners that they hate that fractional banking and inflation (and definitely not proper regulation, taxation and redistribution) are the keys to a more equal society.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#185

Post by throwaway_kufu »

defaultname wrote: post #62
dadoge wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, wow. What if, like, you know, solving problems like 70% of the population not having a bank could actually reduce crime. Bitcoin is a pretty easy fix for that problem. And “it’s a tiny country”…like do they not deserve a better life since they have such a small gdp. This is the most inhumane sentiment I keep seeing about this news “who cares, they are a tiny country with small gdp”

Adorable pearl clutching.

You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment.

It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#186

Post by defaultname »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #185
defaultname wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adorable pearl clutching.

You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment. It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.

I mentioned El Salvador's murder rate because it is a very broken country. Literally the worst in the world. What El Salvador does isn't convincing. I'm not the one who brought up El Salvador as a model to justify something.

As to the "clear bias", I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious claim. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about this entire discussion.

Firstly, I don't work in that realm anymore, but secondly it's _irrelevant_ because the product that I worked on could as easily be "backed" by BTC (in fact it is used in multiple jurisdictions backed by various currencies. The net is that something of value can be transmitted between users). None of these payment systems -- including "Bitcoin Beach" -- actually operate off of the BTC blockchain (you know, because it's completely broken trash).

My bias against Bitcoin is that it is a garbage solution that solves literally nothing -- it is one of the worst solutions in every single claimed use -- but that we have to constantly hear a million pathetic salespeople for it because they've "invested" in it. If there were a thousand pet rock HN commentators pitching pet rocks in every discussion I'd shit on that too.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#187

Post by danaw »

keymone wrote: post #148
danaw wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do serious bitcoin supports really believe this nonsense?

yeah, nothing but ad hominems, people with your level of ignorance don't have much else.

I can't tell if you're just trolling or you're trying to make a point that Bitcoin actually uses no energy which, unless you do some crazy mental gymnastics, is quite a bizarre perspective to hold.

And please explain how my question is ignorant but the stance you're taking isn't?

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#188

Post by dadoge »

defaultname wrote: post #186
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment. It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.

I mentioned El Salvador's murder rate because it is a very broken country. Literally the worst in the world. What El Salvador does isn't convincing. I'm not the one who brought up El Salvador as a model to justify something. As to the "clear bias", I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious claim. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about this entire discussion. Firstly, I don't work in that realm any…

There is some merits to what you are saying.

Yes, the USD is better for hyperinflation *right now* than BTC as it is more stable.

But I do think BTC has better properties that, in the long run, will prove superior to the USD and gold in environments of absurd inflation.

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#189

Post by dadoge »

defaultname wrote: post #186
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment. It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.

I mentioned El Salvador's murder rate because it is a very broken country. Literally the worst in the world. What El Salvador does isn't convincing. I'm not the one who brought up El Salvador as a model to justify something. As to the "clear bias", I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious claim. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about this entire discussion. Firstly, I don't work in that realm any…

The end goal for BTC is not for all transactions to run directly on-chain

Hal Finney basically knew this in 2009

Elizabeth Stark knew this in 2014 and started Lightning

Re: Dutch official calls for complete ban on Bitcoin

#190

Post by dadoge »

defaultname wrote: post #186
throwaway_kufu wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You previously brought up El Salvador’s murder rate as though that has anything to do with or diminishes their Bitcoin experiment. It is really odd until you reveal below that you have a pretty clear bias against Bitcoin because you personally worked on some traditional payment processing software.

I mentioned El Salvador's murder rate because it is a very broken country. Literally the worst in the world. What El Salvador does isn't convincing. I'm not the one who brought up El Salvador as a model to justify something. As to the "clear bias", I literally laughed out loud at that hilarious claim. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about this entire discussion. Firstly, I don't work in that realm any…

The biggest problem with BTC is the fools turning it into gambling, making 100x leveraged trades on it.

But, looking at the fundamental properties of BTC, it does have better properties than USD. It’s just not adopted enough to be stable…but you at least gotta admit that, over time, can change

Post reply on HN