9 ms·

Here's the problem with this sentiment. Bitcoin isn't replacing anything. Not pre-existing fiat currency, not banks, nothing. Bitcoin only adds to the problem a

Here's the problem with this sentiment. Bitcoin isn't replacing anything. Not pre-existing fiat currency, not banks, nothing. Bitcoin only adds to the problem at an alarming rate. Bitcoin is certainly not a scapegoat. It's a massive problem and, largely, a symptom of human greed that must be put in check.

tshaddox 5y ago
I think that’s highly unlikely. Surely the people mining Bitcoin would be doing something else if Bitcoin didn’t exist. Or to think of it the other way, if there was some better way of making money with electricity then the Bitcoin miners would be doing that instead.
- zepto 5y ago
  Have you considered that they wouldn’t be trying to turn electricity into money and might be making money some other way?
  - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
    And to your point, likely a way that doesn't have global implications? Even other bubbles of the past didn't have quite the reach that the likes of Bitcoin has (maybe with the exception of the entire stock market in the Roaring 20s leading right up to the crash of 1929). That's why this time, this is much more dangerous in the long run.
    - spiorf 5y ago
      What about the hypotesis that a global shared ledger under no-one's control with thermodynamical guarantee of immutability actually has some value?
      - kortilla 5y ago
        There is no thermodynamic guarantee in Bitcoin.
        SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
        Last I checked too, Bitcoin is not quantum safe either.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    Making money without using electricity? I suppose that’s not impossible, but it sounds unlikely at any appreciable scale.
    - zepto 5y ago
      Turning electricity into money is different from using some electricity while you make money.
      - tshaddox 5y ago
        I fail to see the distinction. Bitcoin mining, just like farming, traditional mining, etc. doesn’t literally have electricity as its only input.
        zepto 5y ago
        > I fail to see the distinction. Bitcoin mining, just like farming, traditional mining, etc. doesn’t literally have electricity as its only input. If your are referring to the wasted hardware, then sure, but once the equipment is in place, Bitcoin mining itself does in fact have electricity as the only input.
shawnz 5y ago
So, are you saying that new technologies must be considered wasteful if they don't wholly replace existing technologies and instead create new usages of their own? For example would you say that smartphones are wasteful because they allow us to communicate more frequently than we could before, thus they don't strictly replace an existing consumption of energy? That seems like a silly interpretation to me. Of course our energy demands rise as we develop and use new technologies. It's because we are doing more things with them! Also, as I mentioned in another part of the thread, I don't think it's obvious that cryptocurrencies won't replace any existing usages of energy.
- lottin 5y ago
  The argument is not so much that cryptocurrencies don't replace anything as that they don't have a use case (this is something that we can observe, unlike "value" which is subjective), and therefore it could be argued they are objectively useless regardless of their actual value in the market.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    Bitcoin certainly has a use case, just observe how it is being used today, every day. Not just to buy drugs online, but also for example to escape oppressive currency controls, defend against questionably ethical practices like civil forfeiture, etc. If you are saying that it doesn't have intrinsic value, then yes of course that is true, but I don't see how that makes it useless (unless you think cash is also useless)
    - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
      Couldn't this be met with a proof of stake coin? I could at least tolerate a PoS cryptocurrency because it at minimum consumes orders of magnitude less energy than Bitcoin would.
      - shawnz 5y ago
        Hopefully. I think proof-of-stake is a promising technology but I'm not certain yet whether it can fully replace the security guarantees provided by proof-of-work. But if it can, then of course that would be excellent. Not only would it reduce the consumption of cryptocurrencies but it might even offset some of the energy usage of traditional financial instruments. Some possible issues with proof-of-stake though are: Does the ability to borrow money to stake (since you get it back after exiting) make it too easy to conduct an attack? And, since you can't stake if you have no coins, will it be too easy for entrenched stakers to control the supply later on?
thatcat 5y ago
Many things are symptoms of human greed, isn't that what capitalist societies are built on, after all? If carbon was taxed, you'd see a huge investment in green energy and nuclear from both BTC and everyone else then it wouldn't matter. Why should one industry pay for externalities and another not?
bawolff 5y ago
What a weird metric. The international space station isn't replacing anything, i still think its valuable.
- hnbad 5y ago
  I can't tell you how many people I've seen defending the energy use of cryptocurrencies by saying in essence "yes, but it's nothing in comparison to the energy we waste on the banking sector so it'll actually become more efficient as it replaces that".
- mclightning 5y ago
  It has replaced things. You are just ignorant to it. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_...
  - bawolff 5y ago
    ? That's a list of cool new things related to the ISS, not a list of pre-existing things that the ISS has replaced.
originalvichy 5y ago
You should have said that Bitcoin is a bad solution to a problem. The mining algorithm is wasteful because it uses cpu/gpu cycles as much as it can to calculate useless math instead of doing something a lot less energy-intensive like proof of stake. I’m not gonna pretend to be up to date on crypto mining but useless math is useless.
wyager 5y ago
> Bitcoin isn't replacing anything. Not pre-existing fiat currency, not banks How in the world do you say this? It's made significant progress in replacing both of these things. Just because it hasn't 100% eliminated all extant currencies and banks doesn't mean it's not making meaningful progress in that direction.

tshaddox 5y ago

I think that’s highly unlikely. Surely the people mining Bitcoin would be doing something else if Bitcoin didn’t exist. Or to think of it the other way, if there was some better way of making money with electricity then the Bitcoin miners would be doing that instead.

zepto 5y ago
Have you considered that they wouldn’t be trying to turn electricity into money and might be making money some other way?
- SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
  And to your point, likely a way that doesn't have global implications? Even other bubbles of the past didn't have quite the reach that the likes of Bitcoin has (maybe with the exception of the entire stock market in the Roaring 20s leading right up to the crash of 1929). That's why this time, this is much more dangerous in the long run.
  - spiorf 5y ago
    What about the hypotesis that a global shared ledger under no-one's control with thermodynamical guarantee of immutability actually has some value?
    - kortilla 5y ago
      There is no thermodynamic guarantee in Bitcoin.
      - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
        Last I checked too, Bitcoin is not quantum safe either.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Making money without using electricity? I suppose that’s not impossible, but it sounds unlikely at any appreciable scale.
  - zepto 5y ago
    Turning electricity into money is different from using some electricity while you make money.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      I fail to see the distinction. Bitcoin mining, just like farming, traditional mining, etc. doesn’t literally have electricity as its only input.
      - zepto 5y ago
        > I fail to see the distinction. Bitcoin mining, just like farming, traditional mining, etc. doesn’t literally have electricity as its only input. If your are referring to the wasted hardware, then sure, but once the equipment is in place, Bitcoin mining itself does in fact have electricity as the only input.

shawnz 5y ago

So, are you saying that new technologies must be considered wasteful if they don't wholly replace existing technologies and instead create new usages of their own? For example would you say that smartphones are wasteful because they allow us to communicate more frequently than we could before, thus they don't strictly replace an existing consumption of energy? That seems like a silly interpretation to me. Of course our energy demands rise as we develop and use new technologies. It's because we are doing more things with them! Also, as I mentioned in another part of the thread, I don't think it's obvious that cryptocurrencies won't replace any existing usages of energy.

lottin 5y ago
The argument is not so much that cryptocurrencies don't replace anything as that they don't have a use case (this is something that we can observe, unlike "value" which is subjective), and therefore it could be argued they are objectively useless regardless of their actual value in the market.
- shawnz 5y ago
  Bitcoin certainly has a use case, just observe how it is being used today, every day. Not just to buy drugs online, but also for example to escape oppressive currency controls, defend against questionably ethical practices like civil forfeiture, etc. If you are saying that it doesn't have intrinsic value, then yes of course that is true, but I don't see how that makes it useless (unless you think cash is also useless)
  - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
    Couldn't this be met with a proof of stake coin? I could at least tolerate a PoS cryptocurrency because it at minimum consumes orders of magnitude less energy than Bitcoin would.
    - shawnz 5y ago
      Hopefully. I think proof-of-stake is a promising technology but I'm not certain yet whether it can fully replace the security guarantees provided by proof-of-work. But if it can, then of course that would be excellent. Not only would it reduce the consumption of cryptocurrencies but it might even offset some of the energy usage of traditional financial instruments. Some possible issues with proof-of-stake though are: Does the ability to borrow money to stake (since you get it back after exiting) make it too easy to conduct an attack? And, since you can't stake if you have no coins, will it be too easy for entrenched stakers to control the supply later on?

thatcat 5y ago

Many things are symptoms of human greed, isn't that what capitalist societies are built on, after all? If carbon was taxed, you'd see a huge investment in green energy and nuclear from both BTC and everyone else then it wouldn't matter. Why should one industry pay for externalities and another not?

bawolff 5y ago

What a weird metric. The international space station isn't replacing anything, i still think its valuable.

hnbad 5y ago
I can't tell you how many people I've seen defending the energy use of cryptocurrencies by saying in essence "yes, but it's nothing in comparison to the energy we waste on the banking sector so it'll actually become more efficient as it replaces that".
mclightning 5y ago
It has replaced things. You are just ignorant to it. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_ways_iss_benefits_earth https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_...
- bawolff 5y ago
  ? That's a list of cool new things related to the ISS, not a list of pre-existing things that the ISS has replaced.

originalvichy 5y ago

You should have said that Bitcoin is a bad solution to a problem. The mining algorithm is wasteful because it uses cpu/gpu cycles as much as it can to calculate useless math instead of doing something a lot less energy-intensive like proof of stake. I’m not gonna pretend to be up to date on crypto mining but useless math is useless.

wyager 5y ago

> Bitcoin isn't replacing anything. Not pre-existing fiat currency, not banks How in the world do you say this? It's made significant progress in replacing both of these things. Just because it hasn't 100% eliminated all extant currencies and banks doesn't mean it's not making meaningful progress in that direction.