4 ms·

> They are using companies to do it. There are also multiple bitcoin atms in other countries. Also a company in thailand has made it so anyone can send btc to a

by afreak 11y ago

> They are using companies to do it. There are also multiple bitcoin atms in other countries. Also a company in thailand has made it so anyone can send btc to a code, and someone using that code can get cash from the atm. Have you ever used a Bitcoin ATM? Because I have as I wanted to see how ridiculous the process was. To use the ATM it took me 45 minutes to make a transaction go through. Sure. To you, the person who's defending Bitcoin, it might possibly be acceptable, but to the average person they'll pay the 11% or whatever fee if it means that they don't have to wait for some feckless machine to artisanally process their transaction. > our electricity idea is so ridiculous I think the burden of proof is on you http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable There's your proof, CyberDildonics.

CyberDildonics 11y ago
You used one awkward bitcoin ATM and now the process can't work? How would you even spend 45 minutes at an ATM? Which model was it? Where was this? There are buy only bitcoin ATMs that take cash and print out a QR code. I think most people could figure that out. Again though, there are remittance companies operating right now that do the process for someone. Even taking the article's numbers at face value even though it is not exactly the most objective (equating using bitcoin to destroying the environment may skip a few logical steps) that would still mean that each transaction costs about 57 cents (average household electricity usage time the upper bound estimate of electricity in China, where the article focuses). This is all ignoring what I said preemptively, which is that electricity usage isn't a function of transactions. Transactions don't use up more electricity. Let that soak in if you need a moment. When there are more transactions, the cost per transaction goes down. The more people that use it, the more efficient it is, electricity wise. I get that you have some sort of vendetta against bitcoin, and maybe cryptocurrencies in general, but you should figure out some legitimate arguments instead of trying to backwards rationalize why it wont' work when it is actually working right now. It works, it is working, get over it.

by afreak 11y ago

CyberDildonics 11y ago

You used one awkward bitcoin ATM and now the process can't work? How would you even spend 45 minutes at an ATM? Which model was it? Where was this? There are buy only bitcoin ATMs that take cash and print out a QR code. I think most people could figure that out. Again though, there are remittance companies operating right now that do the process for someone. Even taking the article's numbers at face value even though it is not exactly the most objective (equating using bitcoin to destroying the environment may skip a few logical steps) that would still mean that each transaction costs about 57 cents (average household electricity usage time the upper bound estimate of electricity in China, where the article focuses). This is all ignoring what I said preemptively, which is that electricity usage isn't a function of transactions. Transactions don't use up more electricity. Let that soak in if you need a moment. When there are more transactions, the cost per transaction goes down. The more people that use it, the more efficient it is, electricity wise. I get that you have some sort of vendetta against bitcoin, and maybe cryptocurrencies in general, but you should figure out some legitimate arguments instead of trying to backwards rationalize why it wont' work when it is actually working right now. It works, it is working, get over it.