5 ms·

>Anything could technically be used as currency. Historically people have always used something that is difficult to forge. It's estimated that $70 million dol

>Anything could technically be used as currency. Historically people have always used something that is difficult to forge. It's estimated that $70 million dollars in counterfeit money is in circulation in the US. At an estimate of $0.12 per kWh of electrical use Bitcoin uses approximately 70 tWh of power a year. Lets see that comes out to about $120m. At what point is the cure worse than the disease? Again this is just for Bitcoin in its current state as a semi-novelty currency/commodity. How much would it cost to operate the grid for bitcoin if it was the worlds primary reserve currency?

sparkie 8y ago
You're missing the "extra dollars" that the central bank prints to fund the government's overspending. They call it "inflation" and tell you it is necessary and good for the economy. Before your government can create its next spending budget, it needs to pay off its debts with interest. A big chunk of every dollar of tax you pay is taken before the government can even think about what it is going to spend the rest on. This is a viscous cycle because the government can't meet public demand with the remaining money it has and needs to borrow more again! Each time they print, it devalues the dollar in your pocket by a few cents. This means when the government needs to pay back its debt with the interest, the money it is using to pay back is not worth as much as when they borrowed it. Ooops. The cost to operate the Bitcoin grid is unimportant, because it is voluntary, and not taken from the public purse. You can chose not to participate directly if you don't want to put in resources, and rely on some other industry much in the same way you seem keen to rely on a government to do things for you.
- stillbourne 8y ago
  Adding liquidity by printing money prevents things like the great depression. If we were still on a gold note system when the 2008 crash happened we would have been completely and utterly fucked. No liquidity, no debt, no commerce. You see, that's the thing about you libertarians and bitcoin quacks, you can't see beyond your own wallet. Debt is not just about your car loan, your credit card and your mortgage. Its mostly about financial instruments like bonds, and equity, and foreign exchange options. You seem to equate in your brain that because common folks have car loans, and credit cards and mortgages that debt, when refereed to in fiat currencies, is some sort of theft or wage slavery. But the truth is that you are just ignorant of how a fucking global economy works. You can't print more gold, so when the market crashed there was a liquidity crisis during the great depression. Likewise commodities such as bitcoin are susceptible to large sell offs because they fundamentally lack liquidity. Thus the current dilemma of the cointards and the bitcoin market crash. Even at $4k its still overvalued.
- rubyn00bie 8y ago
  What you're saying here goes against any reasonable macroeconomic theory. Deflation causes spending to stop because people hoard money, as spending stops, economies dry up, and voila... economic stagnation at best. But no one without a formal education is Economics is likely to even be remotely aware of that. Inflation, and Keynesian economics, have empirically served the world quite well. The government's and social policies that go with them not so consistent BUT and this is the important part-- Economics doesn't give a fuck. Inflation is a tool to allow an economy to grow, deflation is a tool to shrink an economy. Economics is the science of resource management, it's not an opinion. Your opinion is as depressing to me as it is empirically wrong.
  - sparkie 8y ago
    Spending does not stop. It may slow. Most arguments against deflation are largely strawmen, and the historical examples of it are usually a result of too much government intervention, or it following a period of high inflation. Here's an example of deflation: Moore's Law. If computing power is going to double in 18 months, then a computer I buy now will be worth much less in 18 months. If that's the case, best not buy that computer and wait 18 months right? Another example is a car. It loses 20% of its value on purchase and continues to lose value year on year and is eventually worth nothing. But nobody would buy a car if that were the case! Economic theorists are mostly employees or funded by the banks, the central banks and the governments. There's a "consensus" among them that inflation = good because it benefits the industries they work for. Anyway, it does not matter, because Bitcoin cannot be inflated, and if people now have the choice to hold a deflationary currency or an inflationary one, let them pick! We'll see if those economists were right after all when people actually have a choice.
    - rubyn00bie 8y ago
      > Spending does not stop. It may slow. Most arguments against deflation are largely strawmen, and the historical examples of it are usually a result of too much government intervention, or it following a period of high inflation. Ummm... You realize you just made this up out of thin air, and provided no proof. > Here's an example of deflation: Moore's Law. If computing power is going to double in 18 months, then a computer I buy now will be worth much less in 18 months. If that's the case, best not buy that computer and wait 18 months right? That happens all the time. People wait for refresh cycles but I don't see how this is relevant to currencies or macroeconomics. It certainly backs nothing you've said. > Another example is a car. It loses 20% of its value on purchase and continues to lose value year on year and is eventually worth nothing. sigh You're not accounting for the utility of using the car. At some point the marginal utility of new features will be less than the utility of something today... Microeconomics courses would help clear up this for you. > Economic theorists are mostly employees or funded by the banks, the central banks and the governments. There's a "consensus" among them that inflation = good because it benefits the industries they work for. Conspiracy theory, much? Also that's like saying because physicists are employed by someone they must all be maligned to say the same evil bullshit. Might as well tell me the earth is flat, mate. > Anyway, it does not matter, because Bitcoin cannot be inflated, and if people now have the choice to hold a deflationary currency or an inflationary one, let them pick! We'll see if those economists were right after all when people actually have a choice. You're right, the ignorant and poor will be given the opportunity and "choice" to lose their money and savings because ignorant loud mouthed people who have done no actual research or learning are spouting shit which sounds compelling. It's a lot like people selling radioactive tonics to make you live longer at the beginning of the 1900s. People who are ignorant of the science, ramifications, and who don't are to not be are advising people as though they aren't... and people's lives will be ruined for it.
- kortilla 8y ago
  The US government is not printing money as part of its normal funding cycles. Where does this stupid notion come from? The normal funding cycle is this: government issues bond in exchange for cash now. These are treasury auctions and they happen constantly. There is no injection of money in this process. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself this. Why did the exact same process work when the US dollar was backed by gold?
  - BryanBigs 8y ago
    I think the idea is, you buy a bond for $98 to get $100 back on maturity in a year (as an example). So $2 cash does get injected/"printed" when debt levels stay the same or go down. We just issue more debt though in practice.

sparkie 8y ago

You're missing the "extra dollars" that the central bank prints to fund the government's overspending. They call it "inflation" and tell you it is necessary and good for the economy. Before your government can create its next spending budget, it needs to pay off its debts with interest. A big chunk of every dollar of tax you pay is taken before the government can even think about what it is going to spend the rest on. This is a viscous cycle because the government can't meet public demand with the remaining money it has and needs to borrow more again! Each time they print, it devalues the dollar in your pocket by a few cents. This means when the government needs to pay back its debt with the interest, the money it is using to pay back is not worth as much as when they borrowed it. Ooops. The cost to operate the Bitcoin grid is unimportant, because it is voluntary, and not taken from the public purse. You can chose not to participate directly if you don't want to put in resources, and rely on some other industry much in the same way you seem keen to rely on a government to do things for you.

stillbourne 8y ago
Adding liquidity by printing money prevents things like the great depression. If we were still on a gold note system when the 2008 crash happened we would have been completely and utterly fucked. No liquidity, no debt, no commerce. You see, that's the thing about you libertarians and bitcoin quacks, you can't see beyond your own wallet. Debt is not just about your car loan, your credit card and your mortgage. Its mostly about financial instruments like bonds, and equity, and foreign exchange options. You seem to equate in your brain that because common folks have car loans, and credit cards and mortgages that debt, when refereed to in fiat currencies, is some sort of theft or wage slavery. But the truth is that you are just ignorant of how a fucking global economy works. You can't print more gold, so when the market crashed there was a liquidity crisis during the great depression. Likewise commodities such as bitcoin are susceptible to large sell offs because they fundamentally lack liquidity. Thus the current dilemma of the cointards and the bitcoin market crash. Even at $4k its still overvalued.
rubyn00bie 8y ago
What you're saying here goes against any reasonable macroeconomic theory. Deflation causes spending to stop because people hoard money, as spending stops, economies dry up, and voila... economic stagnation at best. But no one without a formal education is Economics is likely to even be remotely aware of that. Inflation, and Keynesian economics, have empirically served the world quite well. The government's and social policies that go with them not so consistent BUT and this is the important part-- Economics doesn't give a fuck. Inflation is a tool to allow an economy to grow, deflation is a tool to shrink an economy. Economics is the science of resource management, it's not an opinion. Your opinion is as depressing to me as it is empirically wrong.
- sparkie 8y ago
  Spending does not stop. It may slow. Most arguments against deflation are largely strawmen, and the historical examples of it are usually a result of too much government intervention, or it following a period of high inflation. Here's an example of deflation: Moore's Law. If computing power is going to double in 18 months, then a computer I buy now will be worth much less in 18 months. If that's the case, best not buy that computer and wait 18 months right? Another example is a car. It loses 20% of its value on purchase and continues to lose value year on year and is eventually worth nothing. But nobody would buy a car if that were the case! Economic theorists are mostly employees or funded by the banks, the central banks and the governments. There's a "consensus" among them that inflation = good because it benefits the industries they work for. Anyway, it does not matter, because Bitcoin cannot be inflated, and if people now have the choice to hold a deflationary currency or an inflationary one, let them pick! We'll see if those economists were right after all when people actually have a choice.
  - rubyn00bie 8y ago
    > Spending does not stop. It may slow. Most arguments against deflation are largely strawmen, and the historical examples of it are usually a result of too much government intervention, or it following a period of high inflation. Ummm... You realize you just made this up out of thin air, and provided no proof. > Here's an example of deflation: Moore's Law. If computing power is going to double in 18 months, then a computer I buy now will be worth much less in 18 months. If that's the case, best not buy that computer and wait 18 months right? That happens all the time. People wait for refresh cycles but I don't see how this is relevant to currencies or macroeconomics. It certainly backs nothing you've said. > Another example is a car. It loses 20% of its value on purchase and continues to lose value year on year and is eventually worth nothing. sigh You're not accounting for the utility of using the car. At some point the marginal utility of new features will be less than the utility of something today... Microeconomics courses would help clear up this for you. > Economic theorists are mostly employees or funded by the banks, the central banks and the governments. There's a "consensus" among them that inflation = good because it benefits the industries they work for. Conspiracy theory, much? Also that's like saying because physicists are employed by someone they must all be maligned to say the same evil bullshit. Might as well tell me the earth is flat, mate. > Anyway, it does not matter, because Bitcoin cannot be inflated, and if people now have the choice to hold a deflationary currency or an inflationary one, let them pick! We'll see if those economists were right after all when people actually have a choice. You're right, the ignorant and poor will be given the opportunity and "choice" to lose their money and savings because ignorant loud mouthed people who have done no actual research or learning are spouting shit which sounds compelling. It's a lot like people selling radioactive tonics to make you live longer at the beginning of the 1900s. People who are ignorant of the science, ramifications, and who don't are to not be are advising people as though they aren't... and people's lives will be ruined for it.
kortilla 8y ago
The US government is not printing money as part of its normal funding cycles. Where does this stupid notion come from? The normal funding cycle is this: government issues bond in exchange for cash now. These are treasury auctions and they happen constantly. There is no injection of money in this process. If you don’t believe that, ask yourself this. Why did the exact same process work when the US dollar was backed by gold?
- BryanBigs 8y ago
  I think the idea is, you buy a bond for $98 to get $100 back on maturity in a year (as an example). So $2 cash does get injected/"printed" when debt levels stay the same or go down. We just issue more debt though in practice.