Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not saying either way (as this wasn't specified in the tweet either) - just pointing out the huge discrepancy between easily accessible statistics and the story the author of the tweet is trying to tell. There is a huge assumption being made (10 million people hold bitcoin) and zero justification for that assumption.
It also seems like there is zero justification for you 46M Americans figure. https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/how-many-bitcoin-users/ There might be 46M wallets related to US accounts with Bitcoin in them, but 1 person could own 45M of them (I seriously doubt it, but you get the point).
Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
61–70 of 78 posts
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what I'm writing above that isn't objective I would love to hear responses vs downvotes to the floor Do you think that we can regulate crypto into lower energy use? Change hearts and minds?
Objectivity or its lack has very little to do with downvotes on bitcoin threads. These bring out all the would-be authoritarians to impose their will on HN posts in a way they can't impose it on crypto in the real world.
I get the lightning rod component of these threads.
But head-in-the-sand won't get us anywhere.
I've been on HN looks at profile for 13 years now, not going to register a complaint now but makes me sad to have no discourse.
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#63The tweet makes an assumption that there are 10 million people holding bitcoin, and the tweet goes on to imply that this is actually an overestimate. The first google result for "how many people hold bitcoins" says that an estimated 46 million Americans own bitcoin. The huge inaccuracy shows the author's bias and kills the credibility of the rest of the thread.
In my understanding, there are many stakeholders when it's about bitcoin technology. Be it miners, traders, holders, exchanges... BTC is not solely a common legal entity (like: country, company) nor a widespread regular resource (as: oil, gas, water). It's more like the Internet; another protocol to exchange information(+value). Then, who is going to fairly assess the overall energy consumption of The Internet? Thus, the logic followed in that assertion is incredibly hard to understand (but unfortunately popular nowadays).
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even if that's your goal, wasting electricity on Bitcoin might not be the optimal route to getting there...
Bitcoin really feels like a paperclip maximizer type situation.
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#65Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#66Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except exponential scarcity is built in, we're not near the end yet, and the scarcity is causing exponential growth in energy expenditure, carbon release, and heat. Bitcoin would be the perfect scheme to destroy the world.
Scarcity is built in, yes .. but block reward halving is built in as well. Now if there were a time to come, when lightning network allowed wide adoption of bitcoin as an actual payment system ... and the speculation on ever rising price were obsolete, because the price was more or less stable ... then the limited mining rewards would put a stop to exponential growth in energy expenditure. Where do I get it wrong? (S…
Imagine any item with a certain amount of demand. Now cut the supply of that good in half. What happens to the price?
If the supply gets cut in half, then cut in half again, and again, what happens? If we accept that the mining reward is the "supply" then we can see that it should cause continual increases.
As for the already-emitted supply, you can essentially ignore it because of self-interest. Seeing the effect of diminishing supply and unlike miners, not needing immediate funds to buy new mining hardware to stay competitive, for currency hodlers, HODLing is the rational strategy. So holders aren't really part of the supply equation, hence the "store of value" narrative.
So you've got a dwindling supply flow, that causes higher prices, which, because of built in competition, guarantees that the blocks will go to whoever is willing to expend the most energy to get them, which is a ceiling only provided by the current price, which is ever driven higher by the increasing exponential scarcity of the halving block rewards.
Essentially, this scheme ends with the heat death of our planet, and unlike climate change, green energy might not be able to make a dent in time.
The halvening stops in 2140, if I remember right. Humans intuitively don't understand exponential growth well, but if the same path continues, the energy growth (halvening = price doubling)
1 = Today = ARGENTINA's energy usage
2,4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048
In 40 years, 2048 times that. And it just goes up from there. Now, if you're thinking, that's more than the world produces, you're right. But what happens if it is even half, or 1/10th as bad? Still nothing that leaves us a habitable planet, because the heat and carbon from mining will drive climate change past the brink.
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#68If you want to get a read on the "Reduce your carbon footprint" camp's success, check out the top selling vehicle in America (1) Treating this as a "crypto problem" and not a general energy / fuels problem does almost nothing but sell clicks / views / newspapers. Trying to contribute here though on where we really are in crypto and angles of attack for discussion, vs an alarmist view: 1) BTC maximalists don't care an…
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what I'm writing above that isn't objective I would love to hear responses vs downvotes to the floor Do you think that we can regulate crypto into lower energy use? Change hearts and minds?
Objectivity or its lack has very little to do with downvotes on bitcoin threads. These bring out all the would-be authoritarians to impose their will on HN posts in a way they can't impose it on crypto in the real world.
Re: Bitcoin consumes 2nd highest electricity per capita
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste? An unfathomable transfer of wealth from normal people to the rich is happening because of the Fed. How? The rich can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates. They use that money to buy assets. Meanwhile, the government borrows money from the Fed at near zero rates. The government spends the money, inflating the circulating money supply.…
> Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste? Quite capable of understanding, thank you. I just think you're wrong.
At what point would you admit you are wrong? $100K/BTC? $1M/BTC? I will gladly accept that I got it wrong at $0/BTC, hell I’d go as low as $100/BTC. Who is going to be correct?