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

Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

technologyelevation.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 862 posts

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#261

Post by DennisP »

mlcrypto wrote: post #205

If you're reading this 10 years from now look how clueless everyone in this thread is. Everyone here still thinks BTC is not even the best crypto let alone the best asset in the world. If 50k isn't enough to convince them, nothing will. Hope you're enjoying $1M+ BTC prices in 2031.

So let's see, at $1M/BTC, three halvings, 6 blocks per hour, that's 9.3BTC/hr in rewards, call it at least $10M/hr because transaction fees. Electricity at 5 cents/kWh means that buys 200GW, but say miner cost is half hardware. So we'd be consuming about 100GW of energy to send seven transactions per second.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#262

Post by bingbong70 »

hacknat wrote: post #22
jetpackjoe wrote: post #9

There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.

I do think Ethereum will overtake Bitcoin eventually in usage. In some ways it already has. Ethereum's transaction fees are set to drop like a rock over the next few years, and so many useful things are built on it already.

ETH wasn't designed to be a store of value, there is no max supply and the emission rate is higher than even Vitalik predicted/expected... storing your money in ETH is generally a bad idea.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#263

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

kitcar wrote: post #11

Bitcoin is an almost perfect exploitation of humanities fatal flaws (greed, unwillingness to acknowledge externalities - i.e. selfishness). It's that old SF-trope that the cause of many of humanity's biggest problems is humans.

Yes, and the selective bail outs and inflation which favor the rich are just the opposite!

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#264

Post by pengstrom »

Shorel wrote: post #222
nelsontodd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free. You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force. Which do you find less harmful? Edit: I should clarify. I am saying that the status of the USD as a reserve currency has led to lots of US military action.

Proof of Work vs Proof of Violence.

Promise of Violence.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#265

Post by DennisP »

rfd4sgmk8u wrote: post #190
whitepaint wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> PoS is not secure. That is quite a huge claim. You need to give some arguments for this.

Argument: PoW is a security model that depends on energy usage and mathematics. PoS is a security model that depends on human behavior. I trust physics over human behavior any day. Human psychology is the weak link in any system. In the next year, we will see a further consolidation of funds towards traditional finance (they have the capital to acquire the floating btc). We do not want tradfi in charge of coin emissi…

Actually it doesn't depend on behavior. It depends on destroying an attacker's ability to keep attacking.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#267

Post by jraedisch »

“Bitcoin uses more electricity per transaction than any other method known to mankind, and so it’s not a great climate thing,” is all Bill Gates seemingly said. Even I think, less energy consumption would probably be better, and I am pro Bitcoin at this point in time.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#268

Post by rektide »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #68

The article has a one sentence quote from Gates in it, in which he shows a level of expertise anyone could reach from reading one of the hundreds of recent articles about bitcoin. Why is this noteworthy? I don't really disagree with his assessment, but his words are being given undue importance here.

Yes. I'm so sick of Gates being the feature of endless articles. What an incredible sign that we lack respected, informed figures in this world, that we keep having to go to Mr Gates to get an opinion worth putting in print.

I'm not sure whether to think it's just lack of options, or whether this a programme by the rich to build & establish one of their own as someone to listen to. Nicely in the category of "owns a world-spanning super-empire" but generally pretty benign & non-aggressive for over a decade. Has taken some licks & no longer feels like a juggernaut.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#269

Post by epx »

endisneigh wrote: post #77
nelsontodd wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is silly. Consensus (probably, I am doubtful of PoS) isn't free. You get a choice between bitcoin mining and military force. Which do you find less harmful? Edit: I should clarify. I am saying that the status of the USD as a reserve currency has led to lots of US military action.

why present a false dichotomy? it's more like you choose bitcoin mining and military force or just military force

Better just to stick to military force that is useful for many other problems.

Re: Bill Gates Says that Bitcoin is bad For the Planet

#270

Post by celticninja »

saalweachter wrote: post #220
jetpackjoe wrote: post #9

There are so many better crypto-currencies. Better for the environment because they use proof-of-stake, and not proof-of-work. Better for users because transactions are confirmed in seconds, not hours, and without the ridiculous fees that Bitcoin has. I think this shows how truly powerful the network effect, and being first to market is. Because without those things, Bitcoin would be nothing.

You know what actually bothers me the most about all crypto-currencies? None of them are actually money, like in the paper-or-gold-coin sense. They're all ledgers. The thing about money is that I can hand it to someone . Possession of the money is possession of the money and third parties don't need to get involved in every transaction. I can hand someone dollars and take a sandwich and walk away, transaction done. T…

>Possession of the money is possession of the money and third parties don't need to get involved in every transaction.

That's only true if you discount the US government as the third party (at least for USD$) who are involved in every transaction, by virtue of them needing to exist for the $ to have any value or for the seller to accept the $ in the first place i.e for them to know it will still be worth something in 3 weeks when they want to spend it.

Post reply on HN