4 ms·

The thing is either Bitcoin is successful which means the value settled on it's blockchain will be very substantial, so the electricity used to secure that valu

The thing is either Bitcoin is successful which means the value settled on it's blockchain will be very substantial, so the electricity used to secure that value will be worth it. Or it fails as many on HN predict in which case you have nothing to worry about because this electricity usage would only be temporary, no miner would spend energy securing an unused blockchain.

amznthrwaway 6y ago
Or, hopefully, smart people will realize that proof of stake is a better solution, and this will go into the past. Unfortunately, the world is filled with dishonest, disgusting, malevolent sociopaths such as yourself who would rather watch the oceans turn to acid than transition between asset classes.
smt88 6y ago
Honestly I don't think many HN people predict that it doesn't succeed. It's more a question of succeeding at what?
- codehalo 6y ago
  I don't know how long you have been here, but the general HN opinion for nearly 10 years is that bitcoin will fail.
  - smt88 6y ago
    They say it'll fail as a replacement for fiat, which seems true. I haven't seen anyone say it'll fail at being an outlet for speculation and organized crime.
mandelbrotwurst 6y ago
It’s not guaranteed that the value of securing the network will be worth its cost even if the value it provides is very high - the cost could be many times higher still! I don’t say to this to argue that the energy consumption either is or is not worth it, just calling attention to a gap in your logic here.
rlpb 6y ago
It's not even a binary choice. The price of the amount of the electricity spent by miners is pegged to the value of the block reward[1]. As the market value of Bitcoin goes up, so does the mining electricity consumed. And if the market value of Bitcoin goes down, so will the mining electricity consumed. So there's an equilibrium: the electricity consumed is already settled at the value being generated. And value is being generated, because Bitcoin is currently inflationary. The inflation is exactly the block reward that is being forced, through the economics of it, to be "burned" in electricity. If that were all that were going on, Bitcoin would drop in value accordingly. But, for a decade now, that hasn't been happening; the increase in market value represents the value being generated. My point is that the economics of the situation means that the electricity being consumed is already in equilibrium with the value being generated, and will remain so. [1] Plus the value of the transaction fees paid in each block, but that doesn't really change the economics here. The reason it's pegged like this is simple: mining is profitable as long as the electricity purchased still results in a return, which provides the upper bound. Spending less leaves money on the table for other miners. So the price of electricity consumed stays in equilibrium with the fiat sale value of the Bitcoin mined.

amznthrwaway 6y ago

Or, hopefully, smart people will realize that proof of stake is a better solution, and this will go into the past. Unfortunately, the world is filled with dishonest, disgusting, malevolent sociopaths such as yourself who would rather watch the oceans turn to acid than transition between asset classes.

smt88 6y ago

Honestly I don't think many HN people predict that it doesn't succeed. It's more a question of succeeding at what?

codehalo 6y ago
I don't know how long you have been here, but the general HN opinion for nearly 10 years is that bitcoin will fail.
- smt88 6y ago
  They say it'll fail as a replacement for fiat, which seems true. I haven't seen anyone say it'll fail at being an outlet for speculation and organized crime.

mandelbrotwurst 6y ago

It’s not guaranteed that the value of securing the network will be worth its cost even if the value it provides is very high - the cost could be many times higher still! I don’t say to this to argue that the energy consumption either is or is not worth it, just calling attention to a gap in your logic here.

rlpb 6y ago

It's not even a binary choice. The price of the amount of the electricity spent by miners is pegged to the value of the block reward[1]. As the market value of Bitcoin goes up, so does the mining electricity consumed. And if the market value of Bitcoin goes down, so will the mining electricity consumed. So there's an equilibrium: the electricity consumed is already settled at the value being generated. And value is being generated, because Bitcoin is currently inflationary. The inflation is exactly the block reward that is being forced, through the economics of it, to be "burned" in electricity. If that were all that were going on, Bitcoin would drop in value accordingly. But, for a decade now, that hasn't been happening; the increase in market value represents the value being generated. My point is that the economics of the situation means that the electricity being consumed is already in equilibrium with the value being generated, and will remain so. [1] Plus the value of the transaction fees paid in each block, but that doesn't really change the economics here. The reason it's pegged like this is simple: mining is profitable as long as the electricity purchased still results in a return, which provides the upper bound. Spending less leaves money on the table for other miners. So the price of electricity consumed stays in equilibrium with the fiat sale value of the Bitcoin mined.