3 ms·

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 su

by 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".

arcticbull 6y ago
> 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? Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies. > Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. Yes there is, it's by dividing into kWh per transaction. You can't pretend this away because you don't like the landslide loss. [edit] I'm sure you well know those counterarguments are meaningless because they fly in the face of math. Look this is typical of crypto folks, who know well they're melting the ice caps to enrich themselves. It's shameful, and you should feel bad for participating in this. The comparison in the domain is against, for instance proof of stake coins.
- shawnz 6y ago
  I am sure you know well the counterarguments to measuring by kWh per transaction. - The power consumption of Bitcoin has almost nothing to do with the transaction rate limit. Increasing it would have basically no impact on the power consumption. So it doesn't make sense to look at the energy usage on a per transaction basis. - It's debatable whether there is actually a need to increase the transaction rate limit yet, whereas it's obviously necessary for Visa to process a high transaction rate right now and so it makes sense that Visa would have optimized for that already. I think even the "small blockers", who prefer the current low rate, can agree that the rate will need to be increased eventually.

by shawnz 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

> 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? Not talking about Bitcoin, just PoW. The implication is clear: it uses a ton of energy and achieves almost nothing with it relative to competitive technologies. > Like I mentioned already there's no reasonable way to compare its efficiency to technologies like Visa which solve a totally different problem. Yes there is, it's by dividing into kWh per transaction. You can't pretend this away because you don't like the landslide loss. [edit] I'm sure you well know those counterarguments are meaningless because they fly in the face of math. Look this is typical of crypto folks, who know well they're melting the ice caps to enrich themselves. It's shameful, and you should feel bad for participating in this. The comparison in the domain is against, for instance proof of stake coins.

shawnz 6y ago
I am sure you know well the counterarguments to measuring by kWh per transaction. - The power consumption of Bitcoin has almost nothing to do with the transaction rate limit. Increasing it would have basically no impact on the power consumption. So it doesn't make sense to look at the energy usage on a per transaction basis. - It's debatable whether there is actually a need to increase the transaction rate limit yet, whereas it's obviously necessary for Visa to process a high transaction rate right now and so it makes sense that Visa would have optimized for that already. I think even the "small blockers", who prefer the current low rate, can agree that the rate will need to be increased eventually.