3 ms·

"the broader legal system have countermeasures against chargeback fraud" The same legal system will be used to sue thieves, regardless if they chargeback a cre

by mrb 9y ago

"the broader legal system have countermeasures against chargeback fraud" The same legal system will be used to sue thieves, regardless if they chargeback a credit card, or revert a 0-confirmation bitcoin transaction. Do you live in a fantasy world where judges tolerate theft of bitcoins? "merchants don't accept bitcoin in <1 second and never will, because there is no way to deal with the fraud that would lead to." You seem to have never heard of Gemini (second biggest US exchange) who does accept 0-confirmation transactions meeting certain criteria. Or greenaddress.it. Or services like gap600.com. "Not the same thing. Bitcoin isn't decorative" You are right, Bitcoin is not a useless decorative thing. Bitcoin is a revolutionary distributed trustless financial network. Again, it is your 3rd message, and you still failed to explain why it is ok to spend energy on useless (on a technical level) decorative Christmas lights, but not on Bitcoin. "And there are much cheaper ways to pay for things" No. Again I can send $5000 or $50 million across the world and pay a flat tx fee of $2. No system other than cryptocurrencies accomplishes this. "That calculation is using an artificially low energy price" Why do you complain? The low energy price of $0.01/kWh benefits your argument, not mine, as it allows miner to spend even more electricity in this model. "So bitcoin would be 0.06% of the world's market cap, but consuming 0.74% of the world's energy" You are missing the point. It is not market caps that need to be compared, but the GDP increase caused by Bitcoin that needs to be compared with its energy use. The market cap of Bitcoin is in itself irrelevant. The point http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ is making is that if Bitcoin's market cap is that high, then it probably will have helped increase the world's GDP by at least 0.74%, therefore it will be worthwhile to spend 0.74% of the energy on it. "There are irreversible digital settlement systems" False. You cannot name them because they do not exist. Only cryptocurrencies accomplish this.

lmm 9y ago
> you still failed to explain why it is ok to spend energy on useless (on a technical level) decorative Christmas lights, but not on Bitcoin. Christmas lights produce value and there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value (because the value is a subjective notion of prettiness, we can't say that other forms of decoration are acceptable substitutes). Whereas bitcoin does have a cheaper substitute (because bitcoin is functional, so any other system that does the same thing is just as good). > The point http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ is making is that if Bitcoin's market cap is that high, then it probably will have helped increase the world's GDP by at least 0.74% There is no logical basis for that inference - I suspect that article is just trying to trick people by making them compare a large-sounding number ($1 trillion) with a small-sounding number (0.74%), because people don't have a good intuition for how big the world's GDP is. Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production. > False. You cannot name them because they do not exist. Only cryptocurrencies accomplish this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement
- mrb 9y ago
  You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote. I take it you agree with it. "there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value" Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc. "Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production" Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing. RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc. All of which affect the subjective beauty of them. > Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing. It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest. > RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer. Agreeing to perform a reverse transfer will be possible in any system you could meaningfully call a currency. It's certainly possible with bitcoin.
    - mrb 9y ago
      I said "You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote." You still haven't, but instead are nitpicking on whether LEDs affect the subjective beauty of Xmas lights (which I disagree with but whatever.) This further shows your argumentation in this thread is baseless and going nowhere. "It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest" Yes it is. It says "it would have probably directly or indirectly increased the world's GDP by at least 0.74%" This is a percentage that relatively compares Bitcoin's production (0.74%) to the world production (100%). Bitcoin's market cap is mentioned in passing, but not part of the core argument. RTGS: of course the 2 banks part of a transaction can agree to any transaction. What I meant is the central bank or other authority (not part of the initial transaction) can reverse it at will. Most RTGS systems are operated by central banks. If a fraudulent transfer from bank A to B is made, then of course the central bank would step in and reverse it. As I said, again, irreversible digital transactions outside of cryptocurrencies don't exist.

by mrb 9y ago

lmm 9y ago

> you still failed to explain why it is ok to spend energy on useless (on a technical level) decorative Christmas lights, but not on Bitcoin. Christmas lights produce value and there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value (because the value is a subjective notion of prettiness, we can't say that other forms of decoration are acceptable substitutes). Whereas bitcoin does have a cheaper substitute (because bitcoin is functional, so any other system that does the same thing is just as good). > The point http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ is making is that if Bitcoin's market cap is that high, then it probably will have helped increase the world's GDP by at least 0.74% There is no logical basis for that inference - I suspect that article is just trying to trick people by making them compare a large-sounding number ($1 trillion) with a small-sounding number (0.74%), because people don't have a good intuition for how big the world's GDP is. Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production. > False. You cannot name them because they do not exist. Only cryptocurrencies accomplish this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement

mrb 9y ago
You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote. I take it you agree with it. "there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value" Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc. "Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production" Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing. RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer.
- lmm 9y ago
  > Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc. All of which affect the subjective beauty of them. > Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing. It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest. > RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer. Agreeing to perform a reverse transfer will be possible in any system you could meaningfully call a currency. It's certainly possible with bitcoin.
  - mrb 9y ago
    I said "You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote." You still haven't, but instead are nitpicking on whether LEDs affect the subjective beauty of Xmas lights (which I disagree with but whatever.) This further shows your argumentation in this thread is baseless and going nowhere. "It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest" Yes it is. It says "it would have probably directly or indirectly increased the world's GDP by at least 0.74%" This is a percentage that relatively compares Bitcoin's production (0.74%) to the world production (100%). Bitcoin's market cap is mentioned in passing, but not part of the core argument. RTGS: of course the 2 banks part of a transaction can agree to any transaction. What I meant is the central bank or other authority (not part of the initial transaction) can reverse it at will. Most RTGS systems are operated by central banks. If a fraudulent transfer from bank A to B is made, then of course the central bank would step in and reverse it. As I said, again, irreversible digital transactions outside of cryptocurrencies don't exist.