Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

twitter.com

371–380 of 470 posts

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps you deem this a stupid question? Not sure from your comment. Still, we have to be able to ask stupid questions or we don't learn. You seem to think the answer is obvious. Well, what is it then?

> Perhaps you deem this a stupid question? Not sure from your comment. Still, we have to be able to ask stupid questions or we don't learn. Ok I agree here. > Well, what is it then? Banks connected to the political/government controlled currencies tend toward corruption. Banks are part of corruptible scheme. Humans are too greedy with the power of money control. History backs it up over and over again.

> Banks tend toward corruption.

Can you give examples of this in modern first world economies? I am sure there are plenty of examples of banking issues and corruption in third world countries. I am interested in understanding your conclusion that banks tend towards corruption. In other words, it seems you are saying that all banking asymptotically (and inevitably?) end up on the corrupt side of the equation. Not sure I know how to identify that or point out examples myself. Can you help with this?

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As imtringued also pointed out to you, the central bank in no uncertain terms cannot create money. QE is not carried out by creating money. It's carried out by creating bank reserves and exchanging them for assets at primary dealers, increasing liquidity. That article you linked elides a number of key intermediate steps. QE indirectly increases the money supply as I explained to you. Not directly as you seem to conti…

Are we hiding behind linguistic semantics? If the fed wants to buy $100b of assets tomorrow, it can do so, despite not having that money. The interbank mechanics are unimportant, the point is the value is created at will, creating inflation, and is a decision of a few powerful individuals.

> Are we hiding behind linguistic semantics?

Bank reserves are not circulating money because they cannot be spent. [1]

> The interbank mechanics are unimportant...

They are literally the only important thing. That's all we've been talking about.

The bank having these reserves frees up room for the bank to lower their interest rates and in turn create more loans. See, it's this lending process that creates new circulating money. The Fed issuing 100T of reserves and giving it to BoA would not change the circulating supply one iota in and of itself.

> ... the point is the value is created at will ...

Again, no, no value is created by this operation. It's entirely neutral. What happens is these lower-interest rate loans (coupled with the obligation to repay same) increase the viability of business models, fund productive activities in the economy and back the newly created money. This is where new value is generated. Not in creating reserves.

> ... creating inflation ...

Again, no. Inflation is a measured effect. It has nothing to do with supply per se in the federal reserve model. Just ask Japan. They went absolutely ham on QE since the 1980s and they haven't seen inflation since 1995. [2] So much so it's actually been very problematic for them.

> ... is a decision of a few powerful individuals.

Yeah like every Supreme Court decision ever. These individuals are accountable to congress. This is called representative democracy.

Scottie, and I'm going to assume your name is Scottie - I mean this without disrespect. Please audit an economics class. And maybe a civics class. Thus far everything you have suggested is trivially wrong.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_reserves

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/JPNCPIALLMINMEI

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like lots of people forgot about 2007/08 and the impact on so many people around the world. It was truly painful and destructive. And very clearly people responsible got off free, with bonuses and some even ended up with jobs in the treasury. A lot of people I know working in crypto saw their families hurt badly by that crises and will happily spend their lives trying to build something else (even if the odds…

Cryptocurrencies do nothing to solve the problem. The fundamental problem is the belief that money is a thing that can be owned and stored when in reality it is just a relationship or a contractual agreement among humans. The fact that you can own cash and get a guaranteed 0% interest rate even though nobody has signed that contract. E.g. nobody promised that you will get exactly $1 of value in the future. The 2% inf…

> Money is not durable in real terms. It's a market distorting fallacy.

The first thought that came to mind was the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_the_Weimar_R...

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US can literally choose to never default on its debt, regardless of how much money it actually has.

Yeah, and? That comes with consequences. If the creditworthiness of the US is not maintained internationally (i.e. by inflating the currency to evade insolvency) then it will lose its reserve status as significant global clout and domestic welfare. The risk of the US doing that is reflected in its credit rating which is reflected in the interest rate the US has to pay on its bonds. The interest rate is the compensati…

That was my rebuttal to the response that central banks can't create infinite money.

You agree they can service an unlimited amount of debt (with consequences), but you refuted that they can create unlimited money. But they're the same operation.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#375
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We recently had a conversation discussing the fact that we could eradicate hunger and the need for clean water globally, but for a whole host of reasons we have not yet done it. It depends at what level you mean ‘could.’ Yes, agro-technically we can produce enough food to feed everyone. The issue with world hunger is mostly due to non democratic governments preferring power over feeding their people. At that level,…

You literally just described their own comment back to them.

No, the first post implies that the problem is that [the West] is too greedy, and the second post implies that even if [the West] were generous by any measure, it still wouldn't fix the problem.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#376
post #7

With a climate crisis the last thing we needed was to make the most effective energy consumption system ever constructed. The whole thing literally works on competing on consuming more energy. No other system works so efficiently towards such goal. What's scary is that the whole thing was designed to be unstoppable. My utopian hope for the future is that we start sending rigs in orbit close to the sun. Since we only…

I have a son who is just about 10 years old, and he’s getting to the age where he’s beginning to realize how irrational our world is. We recently had a conversation discussing the fact that we could eradicate hunger and the need for clean water globally, but for a whole host of reasons we have not yet done it. He continues to probe “why“ and all I can say is, essentially, because people are greedy and unmotivated gen…

I'm quite fond of the YouTube channel Kurzgesagt which has deep videos that are targeted at a "you don't need to be an expert in the subject to understand."

There's a video on this subject - Can YOU Fix Climate Change? https://youtu.be/yiw6_JakZFc

You may also like A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism https://youtu.be/rvskMHn0sqQ

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Blockchain is the single largest threat to banking, and that doesn’t come without a price. That's an interesting statement. The first question that occurred to me was: Why does banking have to be threatened? In other words, is this a solution looking for a problem?

I feel like lots of people forgot about 2007/08 and the impact on so many people around the world. It was truly painful and destructive. And very clearly people responsible got off free, with bonuses and some even ended up with jobs in the treasury. A lot of people I know working in crypto saw their families hurt badly by that crises and will happily spend their lives trying to build something else (even if the odds…

> I feel like lots of people forgot about 2007/08 and the impact on so many people around the world.

To be clear, banks did not cause the 2008 economic implosion. If you run through root cause analysis, what comes out on top as the trigger event for the avalanche was US politicians distorting markets through legal action that enabled giving mortgages to people who would have never been able to buy a home otherwise. Sounds altruistic, yet, in reality, it ended-up being a destructive force. I remember a documentary where they interviewed various people who bought homes around that time. This one woman worked at McDonalds, essentially made minimum wage and was able to buy a $500K home due to laws that allowed such distortions as "no docs" loans with full federal guarantees.

That and other legal components that eventually resulted in the creation of derivatives where banks could package small fractions of thousands of mortgages into investment vehicles. The game, then, was to write mortgages, slice, dice and package them into CDO's and sell them as quickly as possible at a profit.

Sure, one could blame banks and investment firms for this. No doubt. However, I think the important element to understand here is that, if the government tells you that, not only it is legal to do these things, but they actually want you to --because they want everyone to own a home-- well, what do you do?

Not a good analogy, but, on our roads we have speed limits set by government action. Around where I live it's 65 miles per hour. People drive anywhere between 60 and 80. Lots of people (most?) drive well above the limit. In other words, there's an argument that says it is human nature to push things a bit. Absent enforcement, some people would drive 100+ on a regular basis.

The genesis of the 2008 crisis is related to the removal of financial speed limit signs by government. Not only that, they also effectively said "we want you to drive at speeds we all know are dangerous and irresponsible". Politicians got votes when people were happy because they could buy homes. When the house of cards they created collapsed, we all ended-up paying for it.

I don't blame banks. There is no way in hell 2008 would have happened --no way-- without government removing the speed limit signs. This business of buying votes with handouts has destroyed many countries. The 2008 economic implosion was just one example of this. Latin America and other nations have lots of examples in their history of governments using money and economic policy to buy short-term happiness from the masses in exchange for votes...only to drop them on their heads after the fact.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are we hiding behind linguistic semantics? If the fed wants to buy $100b of assets tomorrow, it can do so, despite not having that money. The interbank mechanics are unimportant, the point is the value is created at will, creating inflation, and is a decision of a few powerful individuals.

> Are we hiding behind linguistic semantics? Bank reserves are not circulating money because they cannot be spent . [1] > The interbank mechanics are unimportant... They are literally the only important thing. That's all we've been talking about. The bank having these reserves frees up room for the bank to lower their interest rates and in turn create more loans. See, it's this lending process that creates new circul…

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.asp

Quantitative easing (QE) is a form of unconventional monetary policy in which a central bank purchases longer-term securities from the open market in order to

increase the money supply and encourage lending and investment. Buying these securities

adds new money to the economy, and also serves to lower interest rates by bidding up fixed-income securities. It also expands the central bank's balance sheet.

I don't know why you don't think creating money and buying bonds and mortgage securities on the open market counts as money creation. Or if you're being particularly semantic about the mechanical flow of this money. None of these occur without the central bank changing digits in a database which magically allow new money to exist.

Re: Bitcoin consumed 134 TWh in total during 2021

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Banking system is regulated precisely to make illegal activities more difficult. But at what cost? I'd argue that the costs outweigh the benefits. It hinders competition and innovation, makes it hard or impossible for some people and businesses to access the banking system, increases fees on consumers due to the immense cost of compliance (>$180bn a year worldwide), puts innocent people behind bars ("guilty until p…

> But at what cost? I'd argue that the costs outweigh the benefits. It hinders competition and innovation, makes it hard or impossible for some people and businesses to access the banking system, increases fees on consumers due to the immense cost of compliance (>$180bn a year worldwide), puts innocent people behind bars ("guilty until proven innocent" is the typical standard with AML), is a privacy nightmare, puts p…

All of that is great but it has nothing to do with AML/KYC regulations.
Post reply on HN