4 ms·

> it's a horribly inefficient way to do that It's not "inefficient", relatively speaking, if there's no more efficient way to do it while still achieving the s

by shawnz 6y ago

> it's a horribly inefficient way to do that It's not "inefficient", relatively speaking, if there's no more efficient way to do it while still achieving the same risk profile.

arcticbull 6y ago
So visa is a few hundred thousand times more efficient. Are we not able to pay people without Bitcoin? The trustlessness and decentralization isn't a value in and of itself, it's value must be measured in its utility.
- shawnz 6y ago
  The efficiency of Visa isn't comparable because it solves a completely different problem than Bitcoin. And yes, in most cases we can pay each other just fine without Bitcoin. That doesn't negate its specific usefulness. It's already well documented that you don't see the trustlessness and decentralization to be a value for you personally. If that's the case then simply don't buy any. Those who do get value from those properties will use it, as is the case now.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late. Your game of pass-the-spreadsheet-cell is now actively threatening the lives of people on the planet at probably the most critical time in human history re: global warming. I have general distaste for the MLM nature of most coins in this frothy climate - but those $SAFEMOON and $CUMMIES folks are just going to lose money, not ruin Earth. I mostly do everything I can to end Bitcoin by raising awareness. You should too. I'd be just as vocal if your coin was based on proof-of-killing-elephants or proof-of-having-a-tire-fire-on-your-lawn. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption [2] https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/australian-power-company-reopen-coal-power-plant-mine-bitcoin/ https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/australian-power-compan...
    - shawnz 6y ago
      As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        > As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2. > Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bulbs being left on which are being replaced with LEDs over time - unlike the exponential rise in BTC power consumption. Not to mention, it requires 400,000,000 people to each act. Killing Bitcoin requires a few people to act. Much easier. And of course, both should be done. > Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable. Yes, much more when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Living in a society requires we make compromises to ensure our shared survival. Our consumption is the sum of our choices. Time to start making some better ones. This whataboutism and nihilism is pretty much a guarantee of inaction on all fronts. Step up and do the right thing!
        shawnz 6y ago
        I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to decide that. > when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. So this is a useless and misleading metric aside from the obvious strawman that cryptocurrencies are only useful because they are "neat".

by shawnz 6y ago

> it's a horribly inefficient way to do that It's not "inefficient", relatively speaking, if there's no more efficient way to do it while still achieving the same risk profile.

arcticbull 6y ago

So visa is a few hundred thousand times more efficient. Are we not able to pay people without Bitcoin? The trustlessness and decentralization isn't a value in and of itself, it's value must be measured in its utility.

shawnz 6y ago
The efficiency of Visa isn't comparable because it solves a completely different problem than Bitcoin. And yes, in most cases we can pay each other just fine without Bitcoin. That doesn't negate its specific usefulness. It's already well documented that you don't see the trustlessness and decentralization to be a value for you personally. If that's the case then simply don't buy any. Those who do get value from those properties will use it, as is the case now.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Sorry its no longer that simple. It's wasting as much power as all of Switzerland and all of Austria combined. 52MT of CO2 emitted annually. 10kT of e-waste. And growing like grey goo. [1] Dormant coal facilities are now being re-activated to hash noise as fast as they can. [2] This is literally everyone's problem now and we should all do everything we can, tell everyone we can, to shut this down before it's too late. Your game of pass-the-spreadsheet-cell is now actively threatening the lives of people on the planet at probably the most critical time in human history re: global warming. I have general distaste for the MLM nature of most coins in this frothy climate - but those $SAFEMOON and $CUMMIES folks are just going to lose money, not ruin Earth. I mostly do everything I can to end Bitcoin by raising awareness. You should too. I'd be just as vocal if your coin was based on proof-of-killing-elephants or proof-of-having-a-tire-fire-on-your-lawn. [1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption [2] https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/australian-power-company-reopen-coal-power-plant-mine-bitcoin/ https://www.newsbtc.com/news/bitcoin/australian-power-compan...
  - shawnz 6y ago
    As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > As is commonly pointed out in these threads, that's likely only around 60% the usage of idle always-on electronics in the US. Luckily Bitcoin mining is utterly centralized. In fact turning off a single mine in Xinjiang cut power consumption by 1/4-1/2. > Isn't that a way more obvious low hanging fruit? No. Is idle device power in the US rising? Some data shows one of the biggest sources of idle power is halogen bulbs being left on which are being replaced with LEDs over time - unlike the exponential rise in BTC power consumption. Not to mention, it requires 400,000,000 people to each act. Killing Bitcoin requires a few people to act. Much easier. And of course, both should be done. > Human activity uses energy, that's unavoidable. Yes, much more when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Living in a society requires we make compromises to ensure our shared survival. Our consumption is the sum of our choices. Time to start making some better ones. This whataboutism and nihilism is pretty much a guarantee of inaction on all fronts. Step up and do the right thing!
      - shawnz 6y ago
        I never said anything about which technology was easier to kill. The question is which technology can be made more efficient while retaining its utility. The subtle implication is obviously that Bitcoin isn't useful, but what is the point of writing all this just to essentially restate your presupposition that Bitcoin isn't useful? I already know you believe it's not useful, but it's not up to a single individual to decide that. > when we choose intentionally 400,000X less efficient technologies because of idealism or because they're "neat." Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. So this is a useless and misleading metric aside from the obvious strawman that cryptocurrencies are only useful because they are "neat".