5 ms·

Anyone who thinks crypto prices will continue to rise forever is not 'the crypto crowd'. 'The crypto crowd' has seen bitcoin go up and down countless times. Th

Anyone who thinks crypto prices will continue to rise forever is not 'the crypto crowd'. 'The crypto crowd' has seen bitcoin go up and down countless times. The problem is, everyone seems to equate noobs getting suckered by Musk with the 'crypto crowd'. I feel bad for them, but it's like saying /r/wallstreetbets are 'investors'. P.S. - And where do they keep getting this 'fiat is going away' bull from? I honestly don't know anyone in crypto that thinks this? Yes, I see crap on youtube pumping stuff like this - is that now what the bar is? "I saw it on youtube" ?

UIGYUIUYG 5y ago
>is that now what the bar is? "I saw it on youtube" ? In todays society? Sadly, yes.
- mech422 5y ago
  I suppose...the world today seems to be driven by FOMO and FUD.. It's like the yin-and-yang of our brave new world :-(
jcranmer 5y ago
> P.S. - And where do they keep getting this 'fiat is going away' bull from? I honestly don't know anyone in crypto that thinks this? Yes, I see crap on youtube pumping stuff like this - is that now what the bar is? "I saw it on youtube" ? I've seen several comments here on Hacker News that has this WTF-level of cryptoboosterism. Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" gives off the same vibes as "fiat is going to crash once we realize it's all funny money."
- jMyles 5y ago
  I think the former is a perfectly reasonable consideration, while the latter is short-shrift. Am I wrong?
  - mech422 5y ago
    sorry - I lost track of the former and the latter... Guess I need more coffee :-) What are they referring to?
    - jMyles 5y ago
      I think that the consequences of imperialism and warfare are reasonable understood as part of the ecological toll of the dollar for the purposes of comparisons to the carbon costs of PoW mining. (that's the former) ...while I don't think that fiat currency will suddenly crash based on a eureka moment regarding the monetary policies by which the dollar is minted and lent (the latter).
- mech422 5y ago
  >>Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" I honestly don't think I've seen anything like that here - but once the crypto threads get too long I stop reading cuz all the cranks come out. But even if we stipulate that as true, is it fair to paint the whole crypto community with that brush? I see cranks in everything from cancer treatment to prepping to stock investing. Everyone seems to realize those fringes don't represent the majority views..So why is it when its crypto, the fringes suddenly represent the majority? It's a bit annoying, like we're all out there mortgaging our houses on this stuff...
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    Just one cite I can give recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 > I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries. The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today. I originally had the quote as a strawman rendition (an exaggeration of the but-you-forgot-to-account-for-X arguments) of the enthusiasts trying to explain away Bitcoin's rapacious energy consumption, and like a week later, I actually saw someone try to specifically cite the energy cost of carriers. Since then, virtually every thread on Bitcoin's energy consumption has had some people come out of the woodwork with that kind of defense, and I don't really have the mood to do the searching to establish just how common those views are.
    - mech422 5y ago
      Fair enough... But the other side of the coin is miners trying to reduce the energy consumption and use green sources. Again, everyone just wants to point at a vocal minority and call it good. edit: I should probably point out the trend to move away from PoW to 'Staking' (PoS) solutions that are more energy efficient. The crypto community isn't ignoring energy usage issues.

UIGYUIUYG 5y ago

>is that now what the bar is? "I saw it on youtube" ? In todays society? Sadly, yes.

mech422 5y ago
I suppose...the world today seems to be driven by FOMO and FUD.. It's like the yin-and-yang of our brave new world :-(

jcranmer 5y ago

> P.S. - And where do they keep getting this 'fiat is going away' bull from? I honestly don't know anyone in crypto that thinks this? Yes, I see crap on youtube pumping stuff like this - is that now what the bar is? "I saw it on youtube" ? I've seen several comments here on Hacker News that has this WTF-level of cryptoboosterism. Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" gives off the same vibes as "fiat is going to crash once we realize it's all funny money."

jMyles 5y ago
I think the former is a perfectly reasonable consideration, while the latter is short-shrift. Am I wrong?
- mech422 5y ago
  sorry - I lost track of the former and the latter... Guess I need more coffee :-) What are they referring to?
  - jMyles 5y ago
    I think that the consequences of imperialism and warfare are reasonable understood as part of the ecological toll of the dollar for the purposes of comparisons to the carbon costs of PoW mining. (that's the former) ...while I don't think that fiat currency will suddenly crash based on a eureka moment regarding the monetary policies by which the dollar is minted and lent (the latter).
mech422 5y ago
>>Certainly anyone who seriously argues "but you forgot to account for the energy cost of nuclear carriers in propping up fiat currency" I honestly don't think I've seen anything like that here - but once the crypto threads get too long I stop reading cuz all the cranks come out. But even if we stipulate that as true, is it fair to paint the whole crypto community with that brush? I see cranks in everything from cancer treatment to prepping to stock investing. Everyone seems to realize those fringes don't represent the majority views..So why is it when its crypto, the fringes suddenly represent the majority? It's a bit annoying, like we're all out there mortgaging our houses on this stuff...
- jcranmer 5y ago
  Just one cite I can give recently: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27179397 > I find it frustrating that crypto-currencies are judged by their energy usage, meanwhile traditional fiat currencies are secured by massive banking industries, governments, and militaries. The total energy required to maintain a secure and stable fiat currency is likely orders of magnitude greater than that of Bitcoin today. I originally had the quote as a strawman rendition (an exaggeration of the but-you-forgot-to-account-for-X arguments) of the enthusiasts trying to explain away Bitcoin's rapacious energy consumption, and like a week later, I actually saw someone try to specifically cite the energy cost of carriers. Since then, virtually every thread on Bitcoin's energy consumption has had some people come out of the woodwork with that kind of defense, and I don't really have the mood to do the searching to establish just how common those views are.
  - mech422 5y ago
    Fair enough... But the other side of the coin is miners trying to reduce the energy consumption and use green sources. Again, everyone just wants to point at a vocal minority and call it good. edit: I should probably point out the trend to move away from PoW to 'Staking' (PoS) solutions that are more energy efficient. The crypto community isn't ignoring energy usage issues.