4 ms·

The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the

The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. The faster others mine, the faster you must do so as well, if you want to keep making money. But Bitcoin's design results in that the increased power doesn't really do anything for the network. It doesn't make it faster, or give it a higher capacity. Bitcoin is also not a financial system, it's a global game of chicken. Even Bitcoin Cash, which keeps the same stupid design is a more attractive option if one wants to have anything resembling an economy simply due to that they increased the block size limit.

splintercell 6y ago
> Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. When the difficulty rate rises the network is more difficult to be attacked. The upper limit to the difficulty rate is the point at which the miners can be profitable. We want the network to be as secure as possible. Though, I would say that we also want the network to be as efficient as possible (ie larger block size for more tx per block) like in Bitcoin Cash.
poundofshrimp 6y ago
Increased power increases security of the Bitcoin network because it makes a potential 51% attack more expensive.
frankenst1 6y ago
> The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Citation needed. The legacy financial system has a huge infrastructure behind it to secure and maintain it (buildings, transport, security, ...). I would assume the US Petrodollar alone probably exceeds Bitcoin's consumption of resources (I don't have any sources though). > Even Bitcoin Cash, which copies the same stupid design is a more attractive option due to that they increased the block size limit. BCH is a scam. Not because they assume that the removal of the block size limit comes without any costs, but because it regularly splits after influential but narcissistic 'leaders' attempt to grab more power and because its community continues to justify deceitful tactics to promote BCH and trick people into buying BCH when they expected Bitcoin. In fact, the lie that BCH is more energy efficient than Bitcoin is just that, another BCH advertising lie. Energy consumption is a function of block reward only (mined coins + tx fees). Currently miners are rewarded ~$400K for Bitcoin and ~6K for BCH. BCH would consume exactly as much energy as Bitcoin if BCH's prices or number of transactions would rise accordingly.
- analog31 6y ago
  Ah, but until demonstrated otherwise, the legacy financial system also supports Bitcoin. It's what makes it possible to create the goods and services that people want to buy with Bitcoins, and the electricity to do the computations. We don't even know what society would look like without our present-day economic infrastructure. For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of it.
  - frankenst1 6y ago
    > For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of it. You can have a closed loop of exchanging Bitcoin for goods and services without any legacy financial system involved. Just because you prefer to exchange your Bitcoins for your local currency does not imply that the cost of maintaining your local currency should be added on top of Bitcoins own.
    - analog31 6y ago
      Indeed, but we don't know what those goods and services would consist of in the absence of the legacy financial system.
- dale_glass 6y ago
  > Citation needed. A BTC transaction is currently estimated to take 821 kWh. That's ridiculous. > BCH is a scam. Not because they assume that the removal of the block size limit comes without any costs, but because it regularly splits after influential but narcissistic 'leaders' attempt to grab more power and because its community continues to justify deceitful tactics to promote BCH and trick people into buying BCH when they expected Bitcoin. I don't care about any of that, actually. I'm mercilessly meritocratic in this regard, and in my case, merit == processing transactions at a low cost. Whatever nonsense goes on in the community, the drama regarding branding or whatnot isn't of my concern. My interest in crypto is extremely minor and focused straight on the "cash" type of usage. Whoever can provide that earns my interest, and I hold no loyalty whatsoever. BTC had my interest back before it bumped into the block limit, and at that exact instant, lost it.

splintercell 6y ago

> Bitcoin's rising power usage doesn't achieve a greater capacity, it's simply the result of an arms race between miners. When the difficulty rate rises the network is more difficult to be attacked. The upper limit to the difficulty rate is the point at which the miners can be profitable. We want the network to be as secure as possible. Though, I would say that we also want the network to be as efficient as possible (ie larger block size for more tx per block) like in Bitcoin Cash.

poundofshrimp 6y ago

Increased power increases security of the Bitcoin network because it makes a potential 51% attack more expensive.

frankenst1 6y ago

> The "legacy financial system" is far, FAR more energy efficient in comparison. Citation needed. The legacy financial system has a huge infrastructure behind it to secure and maintain it (buildings, transport, security, ...). I would assume the US Petrodollar alone probably exceeds Bitcoin's consumption of resources (I don't have any sources though). > Even Bitcoin Cash, which copies the same stupid design is a more attractive option due to that they increased the block size limit. BCH is a scam. Not because they assume that the removal of the block size limit comes without any costs, but because it regularly splits after influential but narcissistic 'leaders' attempt to grab more power and because its community continues to justify deceitful tactics to promote BCH and trick people into buying BCH when they expected Bitcoin. In fact, the lie that BCH is more energy efficient than Bitcoin is just that, another BCH advertising lie. Energy consumption is a function of block reward only (mined coins + tx fees). Currently miners are rewarded ~$400K for Bitcoin and ~6K for BCH. BCH would consume exactly as much energy as Bitcoin if BCH's prices or number of transactions would rise accordingly.

analog31 6y ago
Ah, but until demonstrated otherwise, the legacy financial system also supports Bitcoin. It's what makes it possible to create the goods and services that people want to buy with Bitcoins, and the electricity to do the computations. We don't even know what society would look like without our present-day economic infrastructure. For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of it.
- frankenst1 6y ago
  > For now, the cost of Bitcoin is on top of the cost of the existing system, not instead of it. You can have a closed loop of exchanging Bitcoin for goods and services without any legacy financial system involved. Just because you prefer to exchange your Bitcoins for your local currency does not imply that the cost of maintaining your local currency should be added on top of Bitcoins own.
  - analog31 6y ago
    Indeed, but we don't know what those goods and services would consist of in the absence of the legacy financial system.
dale_glass 6y ago
> Citation needed. A BTC transaction is currently estimated to take 821 kWh. That's ridiculous. > BCH is a scam. Not because they assume that the removal of the block size limit comes without any costs, but because it regularly splits after influential but narcissistic 'leaders' attempt to grab more power and because its community continues to justify deceitful tactics to promote BCH and trick people into buying BCH when they expected Bitcoin. I don't care about any of that, actually. I'm mercilessly meritocratic in this regard, and in my case, merit == processing transactions at a low cost. Whatever nonsense goes on in the community, the drama regarding branding or whatnot isn't of my concern. My interest in crypto is extremely minor and focused straight on the "cash" type of usage. Whoever can provide that earns my interest, and I hold no loyalty whatsoever. BTC had my interest back before it bumped into the block limit, and at that exact instant, lost it.