4 ms·

Waste: use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

by wbkang 9y ago

wyldfire 9y ago
IMO it's none of those, and I think I'm being honest and fair here -- not just a bitcoin fanboy. What's the baseline for a corresponding transaction? Maybe that's a credit card which will cost (not waste here either) 1-2% of the purchase price. But even that's not quite fair because the merchant is taking some risk on this purchase that usually amounts to some additional cost. Also credit cards can't be used to secure transactions of >= millions of USD (and if they did it would be at a significantly higher cost). Bitcoin transactions at the low end of that spectrum are prohibitively expensive, though.
- mrguyorama 9y ago
  Bitcoin doesn't replace credit card transactions or system. You have to judge it by it's actual value, not what it pretends to want to be
  - wyldfire 9y ago
    Yes, fair enough -- it is truly unique and difficult to compare w/credit cards. But to further the debate, how would you evaluate it in these terms ("waste"/"extravagance")? Would you stipulate that it has value or that it at least has utility? What sort of analogy or baseline would you compare it to, so that we could evaluate how efficient or wasteful it is?
    - mrguyorama 9y ago
      My personal opinion is that bitcoin originally was meant as a transaction medium, and that could have been very valuable. However, as it stands, it's obvious to me that bitcoin cannot become that, as scaling is proving to be very difficult, and for more reasons than technical. Also bitcoin has heavily failed in its "decentralized" dream, as most of the hashing power is under the control of very few individuals. This seems to leave its only purpose as some sort of strange "HODL" and speculation machine, and I don't believe that is worth burning an entire small nation's worth of power to promote. In fact, my opinion is that such a system is actively harmful. Even if you believe that bitcoin is not some eternal pump and dump, that just leaves it as a valid investment vehicle. I don't consider a single investment vehicle to be worth the energy spent to maintain "trust" in the chain
- wmf 9y ago
  What's the baseline for a corresponding transaction? A proof of stake system that consumes virtually no energy and charges negligible fees (if it works)?
- Dylan16807 9y ago
  Bitcoin would work just fine with 1/1000th the mining activity. Mining costs round to 100% extravagance. It doesn't matter if bitcoin is still the best way to spend money ever. The mining is a waste, a tragedy of the commons.
solotronics 9y ago
see the interesting part here is that if you can come up with a less wasteful way to mine BTC anyone is welcome to do that. You would become rich beyond your dreams for this.
jkdufair 9y ago
If we use the assumption is that the energy is carbon-based and we consider externalities, extravagant may well be the right term.

Waste: use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

by wbkang 9y ago

Waste: use or expend carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose.

IMO it's none of those, and I think I'm being honest and fair here -- not just a bitcoin fanboy. What's the baseline for a corresponding transaction? Maybe that's a credit card which will cost (not waste here either) 1-2% of the purchase price. But even that's not quite fair because the merchant is taking some risk on this purchase that usually amounts to some additional cost. Also credit cards can't be used to secure transactions of >= millions of USD (and if they did it would be at a significantly higher cost). Bitcoin transactions at the low end of that spectrum are prohibitively expensive, though.

mrguyorama 9y ago
Bitcoin doesn't replace credit card transactions or system. You have to judge it by it's actual value, not what it pretends to want to be
- wyldfire 9y ago
  Yes, fair enough -- it is truly unique and difficult to compare w/credit cards. But to further the debate, how would you evaluate it in these terms ("waste"/"extravagance")? Would you stipulate that it has value or that it at least has utility? What sort of analogy or baseline would you compare it to, so that we could evaluate how efficient or wasteful it is?
  - mrguyorama 9y ago
    My personal opinion is that bitcoin originally was meant as a transaction medium, and that could have been very valuable. However, as it stands, it's obvious to me that bitcoin cannot become that, as scaling is proving to be very difficult, and for more reasons than technical. Also bitcoin has heavily failed in its "decentralized" dream, as most of the hashing power is under the control of very few individuals. This seems to leave its only purpose as some sort of strange "HODL" and speculation machine, and I don't believe that is worth burning an entire small nation's worth of power to promote. In fact, my opinion is that such a system is actively harmful. Even if you believe that bitcoin is not some eternal pump and dump, that just leaves it as a valid investment vehicle. I don't consider a single investment vehicle to be worth the energy spent to maintain "trust" in the chain
wmf 9y ago
What's the baseline for a corresponding transaction? A proof of stake system that consumes virtually no energy and charges negligible fees (if it works)?
Dylan16807 9y ago
Bitcoin would work just fine with 1/1000th the mining activity. Mining costs round to 100% extravagance. It doesn't matter if bitcoin is still the best way to spend money ever. The mining is a waste, a tragedy of the commons.

solotronics 9y ago

see the interesting part here is that if you can come up with a less wasteful way to mine BTC anyone is welcome to do that. You would become rich beyond your dreams for this.

jkdufair 9y ago

If we use the assumption is that the energy is carbon-based and we consider externalities, extravagant may well be the right term.