4 ms·

> The amount of energy being wasted (reportedly more than seven nuclear power plants worth) on what is essentially an unproductive project is quite absurd. Ord

> The amount of energy being wasted (reportedly more than seven nuclear power plants worth) on what is essentially an unproductive project is quite absurd. Orders of magnitude less than the amount of energy being "wasted" sustaining the millions of employees of the banking industry. I use scare quotes because the energy is being spent, not wasted. > I mean what would be left except for just buying into the pyramid scheme, and ransomware payments It's hard to give you the benefit of the doubt when you clearly haven't bothered to understand the argument for Bitcoin's value proposition. Hard money (i.e. money which cannot be inflated) has valuable economic properties, and many people think that a hard money is concomitantly a valuable long-term investment/store of value.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago
I think most people would agree that finance is too large in most developed countries, but it is also important. It's not like the large companies that pay investment banks to help them with their IPOs or with issuing bonds just want to waste money.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Also, it's not like the functions that banks currently do would become unnecessary in a Bitcoin maximalist world. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
  - brian_cloutier 6y ago
    I think both of you are misunderstanding what centimeter is trying to say. They didn't suggest that Bitcoin will replace traditional finance, or that traditional finance is a waste.
    - paulgb 6y ago
      Ok, but then at best the argument is whataboutism -- it's ok to waste more energy because we already waste a lot? The reality is that Bitcoin already objectively uses a lot of energy by design, and the problem will only get worse if its price goes up.
      - brian_cloutier 6y ago
        I don't want to try to argue in centimeter's place, since I'm not sure I agree with them, but the most charitable reading of their comment is not that they're trying to attack the status quo to distract from the energy usage of bitcoin. They seem to be saying that traditional finance uses a lot of energy but we're mostly okay with that because we find financial products and services useful. Bitcoin also uses a lot of energy, but it's only a "waste" if you think it's providing no value. Bitcoin is one of the few ways to buy "hard money" and if you value that the energy is not being wasted, it's being spent on provisioning a valuable service.
ac29 6y ago
> Hard money (i.e. money which cannot be inflated) 1) Bitcoin has never not been in an inflationary period. Every 10 minutes or so, more gets printed. 2) There's no technical reason this can't continue forever - whoever controls 51% of the network can dictate the rules. Yes, the network could fork if the rules changed, but its impossible to say which network would be more successful.

jeffreyrogers 6y ago

I think most people would agree that finance is too large in most developed countries, but it is also important. It's not like the large companies that pay investment banks to help them with their IPOs or with issuing bonds just want to waste money.

paulgb 6y ago
Also, it's not like the functions that banks currently do would become unnecessary in a Bitcoin maximalist world. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
- brian_cloutier 6y ago
  I think both of you are misunderstanding what centimeter is trying to say. They didn't suggest that Bitcoin will replace traditional finance, or that traditional finance is a waste.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    Ok, but then at best the argument is whataboutism -- it's ok to waste more energy because we already waste a lot? The reality is that Bitcoin already objectively uses a lot of energy by design, and the problem will only get worse if its price goes up.
    - brian_cloutier 6y ago
      I don't want to try to argue in centimeter's place, since I'm not sure I agree with them, but the most charitable reading of their comment is not that they're trying to attack the status quo to distract from the energy usage of bitcoin. They seem to be saying that traditional finance uses a lot of energy but we're mostly okay with that because we find financial products and services useful. Bitcoin also uses a lot of energy, but it's only a "waste" if you think it's providing no value. Bitcoin is one of the few ways to buy "hard money" and if you value that the energy is not being wasted, it's being spent on provisioning a valuable service.

ac29 6y ago

> Hard money (i.e. money which cannot be inflated) 1) Bitcoin has never not been in an inflationary period. Every 10 minutes or so, more gets printed. 2) There's no technical reason this can't continue forever - whoever controls 51% of the network can dictate the rules. Yes, the network could fork if the rules changed, but its impossible to say which network would be more successful.