51–60 of 151 posts
It is useful if you consider having a non-governmental/internet native currency a useful thing. If you don't see any value in that, it's gonna be hard to justify that computation.
Bitcoin is an extremely inefficient computing platform. There's no silver lining to BTC, it's simply a moderately big, potentially huge mistake in the history of modern technology.
Inefficient compared with what? Gold requires a ton more energy. As does the existing banking system. Bitcoin uses less electricity than Christmas lights and provides a completely electric, transparent, uncensorable currency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why did Elon Musk buy 1.5 billion dollars of it?
Don’t confuse being rich with being ethical or wise. (This is a kind of appeal to authority, too)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2020/08/06/v...
(of which the top 3 already account for more BTC than Elon) also unwise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For about the zillionth time, space heating with Bitcoin mining is about one-quarter as energy-efficient as using an actual heat pump and so the “we can heat buildings with it!” argument does not actually excuse the massive energy use at all.
So.. somehow the heat output of a mining computer just disappears? Oh wait that's nonsense, because your CPU is literally a heat pump.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately it’s still way, way less efficient than other heating systems like heat pumps This also doesn’t address the wasted materials and labor used to make the chips.
Not really. Heat pumps can't be used in cold climates due to ice forming on heat fins which breaks the efficiency. It's why we use a lot of baseboard heaters in Canada. Bitcoin mining would be perfect for electric heating of homes here. Plus the added bonus of eliminating green house gas emissions from burning natural gas in a furnace (how my house is heated). The problem with baseboard is that gas heating is far che…
Am I correct to assume that this is Bargaining stage of grief?
This reads more like a shallow shill-piece for the people in the article. It's odd to see it at IEEE.
None of the presented angles would work for something like Bitcoin. Without another native currency, how do you assign value or determine usefulness of, say, models? No matter how you slice it, if you're going to make it into a viable PoW-replacement you will need some kind of fundamental theoretical breakthrough that none of these have. TEEs are definitely not it. The status quo is otherwise that it is an intractable proposal (which other commentors have covered already)
I have a feeling that the author doesn't fully understand what they're writing about and are acting as a useful idiot so some guys can get free PR.
Bitcoin is an extremely inefficient computing platform. There's no silver lining to BTC, it's simply a moderately big, potentially huge mistake in the history of modern technology.
The value of decentralized system far outweighs the cost of maintaining it especially when it comes to money. Could bitcoin be more efficient? Absolutely, but to call it big mistake of modern technology is just silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who is grieving and what are they grieving about?
The idea that blockchain will change the world.
It gets hyped, it falters, people stop talking for a while, and the cycle repeats itself.
It is useful if you consider having a non-governmental/internet native currency a useful thing. If you don't see any value in that, it's gonna be hard to justify that computation.
Which of the crypto currencies is a "non-governmental/internet native currency"? From my POV they all seem like proto-NFTs.
Whereas things like Bitcoin and Ether are fungible, meaning there's no difference between my 1BTC and your 1BTC.