3 ms·

That doesn't make sense; you are comparing the creation of a currency against the usage of other. The finance sector includes the creation of cash (its paper, p

That doesn't make sense; you are comparing the creation of a currency against the usage of other. The finance sector includes the creation of cash (its paper, price of counterfeit measures); the transportation of cash (think ATMs), the materials needed for creating debit and credit cards, including their chips, the equipment to protect banks from being robbed (think big steel security safes) along many other resources to make such industry work.

rspeer 9y ago
This is a common knee-jerk response that doesn't make any sense. None of that stops Bitcoin from being wasteful, and most of it is still necessary if Bitcoin is used more. Are you claiming that Bitcoin replaces physical security? How would it do that? Why doesn't someone just walk in and take your computer? And if you're concerned about the creation of small computer chips (why would you be concerned about this), I assure you that Bitcoin is using more of them.
- notgood 9y ago
  >None of that stops Bitcoin from being wasteful, and most of it is still necessary if Bitcoin is used more What? If used more we wouldn't even need to transform it to any other currency, its because is _not_ used more that it is usually needed to convert it to something else. >"How would it do that? Why doesn't someone just walk in and take your computer?" No, someone cannot walk in because he doesn't even know where to walk in, its the same reason Satoshi is extremely rich despite the curiosity of millions to know about him, but no-one even knows his real name or anything at all; we don't even know which country he lives in; so yeah it does replace physical security; at least to a significant extent. >And if you're concerned about the creation of small computer chips (why would you be concerned about this), I assure you that Bitcoin is using more of them. It was just an example of the millions of resources that are wasted by the finance industry, a lot that include transportation (gasoline/ fossil fuels which is way way worse than most sources of electricity gpus are using)
  - rspeer 9y ago
    Without physical security, someone can walk into the data center next to the hydro plant and take all the equipment they want. They can also install rootkits using their physical access to their computers, so they don't even have to move the equipment. No, you cannot replace physical security with cryptocurrency. Nor will you replace the use of gasoline or computer chips.
    - notgood 9y ago
      Data centers need security regardless of cryptocurrency, you can't say the same about money and banks; so your point is moot. To install rootkits you need to know where the computers are or some way to get to them, and that's 100% impossible with bitcoins unless you reveal your own info some other way (e.g. a security mistake)
      - rspeer 9y ago
        I certainly can say the same about money and banks. I am saying it. You want money and banks to run on cryptocurrency, right? Then you need security for it. "Haha, you don't know which computer to steal" is the worst security-by-obscurity idea I've ever heard of.
        notgood 9y ago
        That's like saying passwords are security-by-obscurity. I never said I wanted banks to run on crypto. Overall it is a bit sad your arguments reached this low quality; I was expecting some interesting counter-arguments instead of these slippery slopes, not to mention all the downvotes you poured onto me.

rspeer 9y ago

This is a common knee-jerk response that doesn't make any sense. None of that stops Bitcoin from being wasteful, and most of it is still necessary if Bitcoin is used more. Are you claiming that Bitcoin replaces physical security? How would it do that? Why doesn't someone just walk in and take your computer? And if you're concerned about the creation of small computer chips (why would you be concerned about this), I assure you that Bitcoin is using more of them.

notgood 9y ago
>None of that stops Bitcoin from being wasteful, and most of it is still necessary if Bitcoin is used more What? If used more we wouldn't even need to transform it to any other currency, its because is _not_ used more that it is usually needed to convert it to something else. >"How would it do that? Why doesn't someone just walk in and take your computer?" No, someone cannot walk in because he doesn't even know where to walk in, its the same reason Satoshi is extremely rich despite the curiosity of millions to know about him, but no-one even knows his real name or anything at all; we don't even know which country he lives in; so yeah it does replace physical security; at least to a significant extent. >And if you're concerned about the creation of small computer chips (why would you be concerned about this), I assure you that Bitcoin is using more of them. It was just an example of the millions of resources that are wasted by the finance industry, a lot that include transportation (gasoline/ fossil fuels which is way way worse than most sources of electricity gpus are using)
- rspeer 9y ago
  Without physical security, someone can walk into the data center next to the hydro plant and take all the equipment they want. They can also install rootkits using their physical access to their computers, so they don't even have to move the equipment. No, you cannot replace physical security with cryptocurrency. Nor will you replace the use of gasoline or computer chips.
  - notgood 9y ago
    Data centers need security regardless of cryptocurrency, you can't say the same about money and banks; so your point is moot. To install rootkits you need to know where the computers are or some way to get to them, and that's 100% impossible with bitcoins unless you reveal your own info some other way (e.g. a security mistake)
    - rspeer 9y ago
      I certainly can say the same about money and banks. I am saying it. You want money and banks to run on cryptocurrency, right? Then you need security for it. "Haha, you don't know which computer to steal" is the worst security-by-obscurity idea I've ever heard of.
      - notgood 9y ago
        That's like saying passwords are security-by-obscurity. I never said I wanted banks to run on crypto. Overall it is a bit sad your arguments reached this low quality; I was expecting some interesting counter-arguments instead of these slippery slopes, not to mention all the downvotes you poured onto me.