4 ms·

Yes, yes, yes. In another discussion, I brought up that according to current energy consumption rates for average mining equipment, it took 2.4 million terrawat

Yes, yes, yes. In another discussion, I brought up that according to current energy consumption rates for average mining equipment, it took 2.4 million terrawatts to mine the $1.5 billion in Bitcoin Tesla bought recently. Does putting this much money in Bitcoin have a positive economic impact? Does it have any tangible value other than as a stopover for hedge fund and organized crime money? I think not, despite all the chaff crypto-fanatics throw at you when you question their ideology. It would've been far better and make more sense if the $238 billion invested in Bitcoin today in the forms of CPU power, brains, and cash was put into actual economic activity rather than idling and burning resources in an attempt to fulfill the greater-fools theory.

louwrentius 6y ago
I feel this. Just imagine all that effort and all those resources put in more noble causes like sustainable energy solutions, or anything similar that comes to mind. But it seems all about lambo money.
eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? How much does it consume to mint fresh ones when the old ones are damaged? Bitcoins don't wear off, the ones we've been mining now will be in use for possibly centuries to come once the block reward is zero and only transaction fees will fund the miners. By then, mining will decrease a lot because people won't be willing to pay as much transaction fees as miners currently earn from minting coins. So this is completely equal to the question of how much energy our physical coin minting has cost us - except that physical coins actually are damaged and will be replaced! In the end they might consume more energy!
- nexthash 6y ago
  Ah, the Bitcoin gang has arrived! Have you considered the fact that coinage is actually for buying things? It drives economic activity! Now explain what Bitcoin does
  - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
    If I need to buy something then I need to buy something and will use whatever money I have at hand. It doesn't matter what it is called.
- NortySpock 6y ago
  > Bitcoins don't wear off Sure, they just get trapped in a wallet that's lost in a hard-drive failure.
  - eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
    The cost of replacing them is essentially zero though: New ones don't have to be minted because the existing ones are divisible with 8 decimal places, and that can easily be increased. Instead of minting new ones, the value of the existing ones increases, resulting in the decimal point of the value of a Bitcoin slowly shifting. And the amount of currency which humans use typically is so small that storing the numbers to represent them is basically free, no matter if the decimal point shifts a bit. I would blind-guess that 128 bit will probably be enough until the heat death of the universe.
- user-the-name 6y ago
  > How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? At lot less than what it takes to mine bitcoin. And bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, vanishingly small fraction of "all metal coins we have in circulation".
Nextgrid 6y ago
On the other hand, what drives Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is the need for certain properties that conventional currencies don't have - this includes properties some might find undesirable as they mainly benefit crime. The definition of "crime" itself is murky - are the citizens of sanctioned countries criminals because they're just trying to survive by participating in the global economy despite a stupid feud between governments they have no power to change? Same thing for drugs - the much of the violence associated with them is caused by their illegality. You decriminalize them and a huge chunk of that violence goes away, and so does the need for cryptocurrencies if people can now legally buy it and can use conventional currencies without fear of repercussions. Violence going away has also a viral effect, as drugs are typically what supports other violent/criminal enterprises (such as weapons smuggling) - if drug operations no longer operate in the shadows, it removes their need for other bad things such as weapons. If we assume cryptocurrencies are wasteful, we need to obviate the need for them. The cat is out of the bag when it comes to controlling the technology (it's just cryptography at the end of the day, that could theoretically be done on paper even if all computing devices are outlawed), so the best we can do is merely remove any need for it. Put the future of our planet ahead of some government's interests. The energy cost of cryptocurrencies just represents the effort it takes to provide a currency immune to government interference. If there was an easier way (like if the government didn't interfere with fiat currencies) nobody would use crypto.
- nexthash 6y ago
  Yep, crime is all relative. Cryptocurrencies fullfill a very important need - how else would I accept my ransomware payments?
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    Its not all relative but surely you recognize that theres a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se?
  - Nextgrid 6y ago
    Before cryptocurrencies, ransomware would use gift cards or vouchers such as PaySafecard. Even if ransom payments were made completely impossible, it would just move the problem - malware operators would then trade the stolen data directly or use it to extort users or profit from it in some other way. Hell, the stolen data itself could become a currency. Also, how large of a part does ransomware play in criminal use of cryptocurrencies? Finally, you could argue that "honest" ransomware (in the sense that they keep their promise not to further misuse the stolen data if the ransom is paid - which they have an incentive to keep otherwise the entire business model would collapse) provides a market-driven solution to security & privacy breaches, something that governments still can't solve as demonstrated by the Equifax case.

louwrentius 6y ago

I feel this. Just imagine all that effort and all those resources put in more noble causes like sustainable energy solutions, or anything similar that comes to mind. But it seems all about lambo money.

eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago

How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? How much does it consume to mint fresh ones when the old ones are damaged? Bitcoins don't wear off, the ones we've been mining now will be in use for possibly centuries to come once the block reward is zero and only transaction fees will fund the miners. By then, mining will decrease a lot because people won't be willing to pay as much transaction fees as miners currently earn from minting coins. So this is completely equal to the question of how much energy our physical coin minting has cost us - except that physical coins actually are damaged and will be replaced! In the end they might consume more energy!

nexthash 6y ago
Ah, the Bitcoin gang has arrived! Have you considered the fact that coinage is actually for buying things? It drives economic activity! Now explain what Bitcoin does
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  If I need to buy something then I need to buy something and will use whatever money I have at hand. It doesn't matter what it is called.
NortySpock 6y ago
> Bitcoins don't wear off Sure, they just get trapped in a wallet that's lost in a hard-drive failure.
- eMGm4D0zgUAVXc7 6y ago
  The cost of replacing them is essentially zero though: New ones don't have to be minted because the existing ones are divisible with 8 decimal places, and that can easily be increased. Instead of minting new ones, the value of the existing ones increases, resulting in the decimal point of the value of a Bitcoin slowly shifting. And the amount of currency which humans use typically is so small that storing the numbers to represent them is basically free, no matter if the decimal point shifts a bit. I would blind-guess that 128 bit will probably be enough until the heat death of the universe.
user-the-name 6y ago
> How much energy did it consume to mint all the physical metal coins we have in circulation? At lot less than what it takes to mine bitcoin. And bitcoin is a tiny, tiny, vanishingly small fraction of "all metal coins we have in circulation".

Nextgrid 6y ago

On the other hand, what drives Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies is the need for certain properties that conventional currencies don't have - this includes properties some might find undesirable as they mainly benefit crime. The definition of "crime" itself is murky - are the citizens of sanctioned countries criminals because they're just trying to survive by participating in the global economy despite a stupid feud between governments they have no power to change? Same thing for drugs - the much of the violence associated with them is caused by their illegality. You decriminalize them and a huge chunk of that violence goes away, and so does the need for cryptocurrencies if people can now legally buy it and can use conventional currencies without fear of repercussions. Violence going away has also a viral effect, as drugs are typically what supports other violent/criminal enterprises (such as weapons smuggling) - if drug operations no longer operate in the shadows, it removes their need for other bad things such as weapons. If we assume cryptocurrencies are wasteful, we need to obviate the need for them. The cat is out of the bag when it comes to controlling the technology (it's just cryptography at the end of the day, that could theoretically be done on paper even if all computing devices are outlawed), so the best we can do is merely remove any need for it. Put the future of our planet ahead of some government's interests. The energy cost of cryptocurrencies just represents the effort it takes to provide a currency immune to government interference. If there was an easier way (like if the government didn't interfere with fiat currencies) nobody would use crypto.

nexthash 6y ago
Yep, crime is all relative. Cryptocurrencies fullfill a very important need - how else would I accept my ransomware payments?
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  Its not all relative but surely you recognize that theres a difference between malum prohibitum and malum in se?
- Nextgrid 6y ago
  Before cryptocurrencies, ransomware would use gift cards or vouchers such as PaySafecard. Even if ransom payments were made completely impossible, it would just move the problem - malware operators would then trade the stolen data directly or use it to extort users or profit from it in some other way. Hell, the stolen data itself could become a currency. Also, how large of a part does ransomware play in criminal use of cryptocurrencies? Finally, you could argue that "honest" ransomware (in the sense that they keep their promise not to further misuse the stolen data if the ransom is paid - which they have an incentive to keep otherwise the entire business model would collapse) provides a market-driven solution to security & privacy breaches, something that governments still can't solve as demonstrated by the Equifax case.