$365B wiped off cryptocurrency market after Tesla stops accepting Bitcoin

Post by mavhc » Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

svachalek wrote: post #166

snotrockets wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter: considering that all cryptocurrencies have significant environmental impact, using them would force ESG-screening funds to drop the company.

Bitcoin is deliberately inefficient to a horrifying degree but it is not "all cryptocurrencies". Most modern designs are thousands or millions of times more efficient.

Post by xur17 » Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:49 PM UTC

rawtxapp wrote: post #173

chrisco255 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The proof of stake ETH2 chain is already live for Ethereum and has been since December. That chain is parallel to the existing proof of work chain. They now need to merge the POW chain into the ETH2 validator nodes so they can conduct consensus from there on. The merge has been simulated already and is being tested. Core devs seem to be confident it will be feasible with low risk. But of course, there's always a chan…

It's one thing for it to be live, it's another thing for it to be stress tested in actual production/real world with people's actual money. I have a vested interest in hoping it lands successfully, but being a software engineer, I know how many bugs I've had even in simple programs, I can only imagine the kinds of bugs that will be discovered in eth2 considering just how complex it is.

Post by skinnymuch » Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:52 PM UTC

didibus wrote: post #153

lordnacho wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't downvote you, but your comment is the kind that gets downvoted. You're pointing out something that's true and besides the point. MSFT stock can decrease in value without any shares getting destroyed. The market value is in fact what people mean by "$X wiped off".

Ok, I might not have been familiar with the use of the term. I thought in the context of crypto, where coins can actually be "wiped off", in that they can be destroyed and removed from the available pool, it was a little confusing to me. But if this is a common usage to mean a sudden drop in price then I take it back.

Post by Muromec » Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:53 PM UTC

worik wrote: post #219

orblivion wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay, here's my Big Brain, 4D Chess take: Elon Musk wanted to adopt Bitcoin, but he knew there was this big problem with energy consumption. It's bad for his brand, and perhaps goes against his own ethics. Could he say "hey, get the energy consumption down and I'll go all-in with Tesla"? People wouldn't think much of it. Better option: Buy a huge stake in Bitcoin, announce that he'll be accepting bitcoin at Tesla, ge…

It is not possible to clean up bitcoin. Even if it moved entirely to renewable energy it would still be a massive opportunity cost. There are productive uses that energy could be put to. Bitcoin is not productive. Using gigawatts to process a few transactions a second, when existing financial frameworks can process millions of transactions a seconds at a fraction of the energy input means that bitcoin is always a mas…

Post by fastball » Thu, May 13, 2021, 9:55 PM UTC

rchaud wrote: post #168

dragoncowman wrote: post #77

I don't really buy the pump and dump take here. Even if it had been an intentional pump, no reason to trigger a selloff. Some Theses: - Elon is a quick decision maker, he could have genuinely been persuaded about energy usage post-hoc. The energy bit does run somewhat contrary to Tesla's core mission. - In line with this, tesla may be about to form a partnership or make a move with another crypto platform, both becau…

I find it hard to believe that a guy who talks non stop about clean energy does not know how much dirty energy cryptomining uses. It is even less likely that he signed off on a $1.5b purchase of it, and that no-one involved in that process brought up its energy use.