7 ms·
Bitcoins show the same aspects in those who've been charging you 1-4% for the pleasure of doing what bitcoin achieves
by tomcooks 5y ago
Bitcoins show the same aspects in those who've been charging you 1-4% for the pleasure of doing what bitcoin achieves
- axlee 5y agoRemind me the carbon footprint and transaction costs of Bitcoin again, and compare that to the costs from institutional payment gateways?
- dexen 5y ago>the carbon footprint of Bitcoin Still less than the carbon footprint of the people running our current fiat-based financial infrastructure. It's the bankers who have jets, mansions and yachts, not the bitcoiners. Edit to clarify: Not that riches is somehow "wrong" - it's just that with major value comes major costs, which in practice mean major energy usage.
- the_cramer 5y agoPlease take this from a guy who is not in any way a finance/economy expert: Why does the currency have anything to do with the wealth of the bankers. Bitcoin is, as far as i know, a fiat currency too. The value depends on the believe (demand-supply) of the people. You accepting it as means of payment gives it value. The reason bankers and others have yachts are interests, Investmens, tax avoidance schemes and so on. Nothing Bitcoin solves. The issue is a political one and how we do business and laws.
- axlee 5y agoThese people have been convinced by the same yacht-owners that they hate that fractional banking and inflation (and definitely not proper regulation, taxation and redistribution) are the keys to a more equal society.
- lm28469 5y ago> Still less than the carbon footprint of the people running our current fiat-based financial infrastructure. One is literally supporting the world and the other is used by a few million people as a speculative asset, money laundering scheme or to buy drugs online. And on top of that you're wrong...
- Scarblac 5y agoBitcoin uses far more energy than the jets, mansion and yachts of bankers.
- keymone 5y agoBitcoin uses zero energy.
- danaw 5y agoDo serious bitcoin supports really believe this nonsense?
- keymone 5y agoyeah, nothing but ad hominems, people with your level of ignorance don't have much else.
- danaw 5y agoI can't tell if you're just trolling or you're trying to make a point that Bitcoin actually uses no energy which, unless you do some crazy mental gymnastics, is quite a bizarre perspective to hold. And please explain how my question is ignorant but the stance you're taking isn't?
- keymone 5y agoWell, your question assumes that bitcoin is using energy and anybody thinking differently must be ridiculed. Bitcoin isn’t using any energy, bitcoin is a marketplace where security of financial asset is represented in terms of energy expenditure.
- afiori 5y agoairplanes use no energy, they offer a marketplace where token of fuel consumption are exchanged for weak guarantees of transportation
- afiori 5y agostatistically speaking drunk drivers (as a total) cause less incidents of sober drivers (as a total)
- keymone 5y agoZero carbon footprint and zero carbon in transaction costs. You simply don’t understand what is that energy used for. It’s definitely not for processing transactions.
- tromp 5y agoIt will be in a few decades when Bitcoin can no longer rely on the ever dwindling block subsidy to provide enough security. Then it will be predominantly the transaction fees that keep bitcoin secure.
- keymone 5y agoBlock subsidy doesn’t provide any security, if you made a fork of bitcoin that paid 100 times the subsidy of the original, your fork wouldn’t be any more secure. Much less secure in fact.
- MereInterest 5y agoThe energy use is for processing transactions. The block reward exists to give an incentive to process transactions.
- keymone 5y agoCategorically false. Exactly zero energy is required to produce a block. If your statement were true and bitcoin required Switzerland’s worth of energy to produce a block - how on earth did satoshi mine all the early blocks by himself? Your understanding of how it all works is simply flawed. Energy is required to satisfy difficulty requirement, which has to do with chain security, not with transaction processing.
- MereInterest 5y agoGot it, so you're separating out the energy requirements into two buckets, then pretending that those two are unrelated. I agree that in general, processing transactions is not an energy-intensive task. This is why traditional payment processors with trusted nodes are able to do so efficiently. In the case of cryptocurrency, where the assumption is that all nodes are inherently untrustworthy, the resource requirement is stapled onto the transaction processing. When people say "transactions cost X amount to process", they mean "in the current state of bitcoin", not in the past when there were very few transaction validators. The more transaction validators (typically called "miners") there are, the higher the cost of validating a transaction, due to Bitcoin's difficulty scaling. I'm not sure why you separate out chain security from transaction validation and treat them as separate, when the chain security is there to protect against invalid transactions. It's sort of the entire point of it.
- nathias 5y agoBTC carbon footprint is smaller than USA government's
- axlee 5y agoHow is that statement supposed to contribute to the conversation? We all know that Bitcoin's consumption and environmental impact is absolutely massive for what is essentially - currently - an online casino.
- nathias 5y agoI don't know that its essentially an online casino. It's a digital currency that makes it able to transact outside of the domain of Visa/MasterCard and US dollar, so maybe compare it to that system and the energy requirements of those.
- luma 5y agoAllright, let's say I want to send you $5 using bitcoin to cover a coffee. How much of a fee can I expect to spend on this simple transaction? How long will that transaction take? Currently, the answer is a little over $6: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees... That number has been over $50 on occasion.