4 ms·

Re: "ecological disaster" I believe this is misinformation, because it assumes that the energy usage is not being well spent - that Bitcoin is a waste - but th

Re: "ecological disaster" I believe this is misinformation, because it assumes that the energy usage is not being well spent - that Bitcoin is a waste - but that assumption could not be further from the truth. Bitcoin's value lies in its absolute scarcity and immutable monetary policy - it preserves your time spent working in a money that cannot be debased by anyone, ever. There will only ever be 21 million bitcoin. If your savings is constantly at risk of being debased, not only do you lose purchasing power over time, but you're also incentivized to spend it and invest it as quickly as possible, rather than waiting thoughtfully for the best purchase or investment. You're being forced to have an extra job, as an investor, to even remotely come close to making a good investment. This is assuming that's even an option and that you have access to financial institutions in your country. Technology is advancing exponentially - it should bring abundance and higher quality of life to everyone in the world. People will get more for less money, i.e. it is exponentially deflationary. With an inflationary monetary policy, where markets and assets prices are supported by the printing of money and will immediately crash if the printing stops, many nations will be forced to print exponentially to fight the deflation caused by technology. In other words, technology should be saving everyone time and energy as it raises productivity, but inflation forces everyone to work harder to keep up. How can a finite planet support an economic system that demands infinite growth? A money with absolute scarcity solves this by allowing for deflation in prices as technology drives abundance. Fiat and inflationary monetary policy is the root problem driving climate change, and likely many other complex negative externalities. In addition, I would point out that energy usage is not intrinsically bad. Higher per capita energy usage leads to higher quality of life. The climate issue energy poses is within how the energy is produced, and the majority of that problem lies in the emissions from coal power. The good news on the energy production side is that a monetary network using Proof-of-Work incentivizes competition between miners globally. As cheaper (or even free, stranded) energy is made available to miners anywhere in the world, miners anywhere else who pay more for energy are pushed out of profitability and have to shut down shop. The difficulty adjustment in Bitcoin mining means that as more miners compete, those paying the most for energy are forced out of the market. This creates a clear incentive for miners to find the cheapest possible energy, which is predominately green and renewable and drives innovation in the space. Cheaper energy is great for humanity. Check out the recent work by ARK / Square exploring this. Overall, these developments have made me hopeful and optimistic about the future again :)

meowface 5y ago
This is why I don't like it when people call it a waste or meaningless. In my opinion, it's not a waste, but it is "excessively energy-consumptive". Sure, a lot of value is generated, but is that value commensurate with the cost? In the limit, what's the cap on this? Will Bitcoin mining consume 5% of the entire world's electricity in a decade? Is that really the best way to create a secure cryptocurrency? In addition to the potential environmental impact, what's the opportunity cost of that usage? If Ethereum 2.0 rolls out and runs a PoS network without any issues for a year, 2 years, 3 years, what then? (Rather than debating the probability of that happening, for the sake of argument let's just hypothetically assume the transition does succeed and things run soothly for years.) I suspect the community and devs won't even consider itas a topic for debate, though, which makes me think the cryptocurrency wars are going to get much more heated over the next 5 years. The cryptocurrencies you choose to use will be much more of a philosophical and ideological identity statement than it already is. Bitcoin-only vs. Ethereum-only vs. never-coiners. I'm genuinely pretty concerned it might reach the level of pro-life vs. pro-choice (vs. anti-natalist, I guess).
skybrian 5y ago
Small, fairly predictable amounts of inflation don't matter too much in the long term because long-term savings is typically not saved as cash, but in a productive asset. That's a feature, not a bug. Why should we reward people if they don't invest their money in something useful? And this is why it would be better to figure out how not to reward people for buying cryptocurrency. It's not a productive investment, it's just holding.
mkfinkletinkle 5y ago
The mental gymnastics required here are staggering. The cost of roping more rubes into the pyramid Currencies are not supposed to be hoarded. Hoarding crashes economies, not moderate inflation. Investments are supposed to have intrinsic value. Bitcoin’s scarcity belies the myriad alternatives. Smoking does not encourage lung cancer research. Miners already have full incentive to find the cheapest possible energy and this is the latest and most breathtaking excuse to keep this abominable scam alive. My hope for the future is that people wisen up to get-rich-quick schemes before they lose all their money
5y ago

meowface 5y ago

This is why I don't like it when people call it a waste or meaningless. In my opinion, it's not a waste, but it is "excessively energy-consumptive". Sure, a lot of value is generated, but is that value commensurate with the cost? In the limit, what's the cap on this? Will Bitcoin mining consume 5% of the entire world's electricity in a decade? Is that really the best way to create a secure cryptocurrency? In addition to the potential environmental impact, what's the opportunity cost of that usage? If Ethereum 2.0 rolls out and runs a PoS network without any issues for a year, 2 years, 3 years, what then? (Rather than debating the probability of that happening, for the sake of argument let's just hypothetically assume the transition does succeed and things run soothly for years.) I suspect the community and devs won't even consider itas a topic for debate, though, which makes me think the cryptocurrency wars are going to get much more heated over the next 5 years. The cryptocurrencies you choose to use will be much more of a philosophical and ideological identity statement than it already is. Bitcoin-only vs. Ethereum-only vs. never-coiners. I'm genuinely pretty concerned it might reach the level of pro-life vs. pro-choice (vs. anti-natalist, I guess).

skybrian 5y ago

Small, fairly predictable amounts of inflation don't matter too much in the long term because long-term savings is typically not saved as cash, but in a productive asset. That's a feature, not a bug. Why should we reward people if they don't invest their money in something useful? And this is why it would be better to figure out how not to reward people for buying cryptocurrency. It's not a productive investment, it's just holding.

mkfinkletinkle 5y ago

The mental gymnastics required here are staggering. The cost of roping more rubes into the pyramid Currencies are not supposed to be hoarded. Hoarding crashes economies, not moderate inflation. Investments are supposed to have intrinsic value. Bitcoin’s scarcity belies the myriad alternatives. Smoking does not encourage lung cancer research. Miners already have full incentive to find the cheapest possible energy and this is the latest and most breathtaking excuse to keep this abominable scam alive. My hope for the future is that people wisen up to get-rich-quick schemes before they lose all their money

5y ago