3 ms·

Just Bitcoin alone has a 100+ million users and its user base is exponentially growing at a speed larger than both the rise of Facebook and the internet as a wh

by fleddr 5y ago

Just Bitcoin alone has a 100+ million users and its user base is exponentially growing at a speed larger than both the rise of Facebook and the internet as a whole. So no, you cannot "absolutely" state that it is a waste as if it is an established fact. You likely consider it a waste as you believe it has no function, and zero value. You're free to believe that, but it doesn't make it fact. Clearly, the high energy usage is not "because they want to", it has an essential function: securing the network. Bitcoin will never switch to another distribution mechanism.

jollybean 5y ago
We ban Ponzi schemes with 'millions of users' even though the people involved don't think they are a 'waste'. BTC has zero 'users' - because it can't be used for anything, and it's a waste. This is mostly a fact, because it's possible to be objective about things. If Bill Gates burned $2B in Oil in his backyard for no reason, we would instantly make a law banning it. Why? Because it would be an easy way to stop 'waste' even if Gates did not think it was a 'waste'. There are other ways to distribute cryptocurrencies, they should definitively ban power consumption for such activities. It doesn't matter that BTC 'will always do such and such' - it's an irrelevant Ponzi scheme. At least the scammers can pick a scam that doesn't involve wasting energy which could be used for literally anything else.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Calling Bitcoin a ponzi scheme means you use an extremely lax definition of the term "ponzi", which would make any appreciating asset in this world also a ponzi. Like real estate. Bitcoin doesn't even meet the most basic definition of a ponzi. A ponzi promises (and initially delivers) a guaranteed return on your investment, funded by an ever larger group of newer investors. Bitcoin doesn't do any of those things. It doesn't give or guarantee a return and may in fact cause a massive loss. It's a speculative, scarce asset subject to price discovery. So no, you're not objective about things, you're clueless. Bitcoin doesn't "burn oil", it's at 55-60% renewable energy and rapidly improving, which is a whopping 3 times better than the average of any other industry. As for it having "no use", it stores (and grows) monetary value. An important function for people's savings. And not just that, in countries with failing currencies, it is a life raft against double digit inflation. It's also massively embraced by young people, as they came into a world with zero access to anything that preserves or grows wealth. As for relevancy, it has an exponentially growing user base. The first institutional investors are in, ETFs are coming and the first country has embraced it. ATMs are being mass deployed and even the most conservative banks (like Goldman, JP Morgan) add it to client portfolios now. Google has unblocked crypto ads, Apple and Amazon are working on support, and Twitter's CEO is all-in. Tesla has indicated to reverse their statement. A trillion dollar market cap that is exponentially growing is not "irrelevant". You're stuck in a narrative from 5-10 years ago and have no idea what is happening.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    'You're clueless' if you're worried about the technical definition of a 'Ponzi Scheme', when colloquially, it's clearly a scam in which participants gain book value only to the extent that there is an every growing number of idiots willing to continue participating, i.e. a 'Ponzi-like Scheme' for all intents and purposes. "Bitcoin doesn't "burn oil", it's at 55-60% renewable" - 'it doesn't matter' from which source it draws energy because it's effectively (by and large) the same pool of energy that other, far more useful mechanations are bidding on and drawing from, and of course, it's an enormous amount of energy wasted. "As for relevancy, it has an exponentially growing user base" Which is false, it has zero user base, because it can't be 'used' for anything, which is the entire point. "A trillion dollar market cap " again a bit 'clueless' to get into pedantic definitions because that has absolutely nothing to do with what a 'market cap' is. Bitcoin had some promise even as it was a little bit of a hustle, it never materialized, now it's a total waste of time and energy. People can waste each other's time, but not our energy. Thankfully, it's so wasteful politicians will eventually hone in and ban mining it, they'll have no choice.
    - fleddr 5y ago
      In both the generous definition of a ponzi or the technical one, Bitcoin doesn't fit in. Words matter. Neither does it fit any definition of a scam. A scam has a central owner, trying to rug-pull somebody. Bitcoin doesn't have any owner or central organization behind it. You have no point. I already explained how it's secure savings technology. Hence if you use Bitcoin for that, you're a user, and it has a use. You lack even the most basic understanding of Bitcoin as mining cannot be banned. If you outlaw large scale mining, as recently done in China, the Bitcoin hash rate recovers in mere weeks. Which is what just happened. Even if you'd outlaw any and all large scale mining in the US, it will just move to another country. Many happy to host such a profitable business. Many places with surplus energy. And if that fails, we just go back to home mining, which would decentralize Bitcoin further. Drawing power from a solar panel, what exactly are you or the government going to do about it? None of this will even happen as it won't be banned in the US.

by fleddr 5y ago

jollybean 5y ago

We ban Ponzi schemes with 'millions of users' even though the people involved don't think they are a 'waste'. BTC has zero 'users' - because it can't be used for anything, and it's a waste. This is mostly a fact, because it's possible to be objective about things. If Bill Gates burned $2B in Oil in his backyard for no reason, we would instantly make a law banning it. Why? Because it would be an easy way to stop 'waste' even if Gates did not think it was a 'waste'. There are other ways to distribute cryptocurrencies, they should definitively ban power consumption for such activities. It doesn't matter that BTC 'will always do such and such' - it's an irrelevant Ponzi scheme. At least the scammers can pick a scam that doesn't involve wasting energy which could be used for literally anything else.

fleddr 5y ago
Calling Bitcoin a ponzi scheme means you use an extremely lax definition of the term "ponzi", which would make any appreciating asset in this world also a ponzi. Like real estate. Bitcoin doesn't even meet the most basic definition of a ponzi. A ponzi promises (and initially delivers) a guaranteed return on your investment, funded by an ever larger group of newer investors. Bitcoin doesn't do any of those things. It doesn't give or guarantee a return and may in fact cause a massive loss. It's a speculative, scarce asset subject to price discovery. So no, you're not objective about things, you're clueless. Bitcoin doesn't "burn oil", it's at 55-60% renewable energy and rapidly improving, which is a whopping 3 times better than the average of any other industry. As for it having "no use", it stores (and grows) monetary value. An important function for people's savings. And not just that, in countries with failing currencies, it is a life raft against double digit inflation. It's also massively embraced by young people, as they came into a world with zero access to anything that preserves or grows wealth. As for relevancy, it has an exponentially growing user base. The first institutional investors are in, ETFs are coming and the first country has embraced it. ATMs are being mass deployed and even the most conservative banks (like Goldman, JP Morgan) add it to client portfolios now. Google has unblocked crypto ads, Apple and Amazon are working on support, and Twitter's CEO is all-in. Tesla has indicated to reverse their statement. A trillion dollar market cap that is exponentially growing is not "irrelevant". You're stuck in a narrative from 5-10 years ago and have no idea what is happening.
- jollybean 5y ago
  'You're clueless' if you're worried about the technical definition of a 'Ponzi Scheme', when colloquially, it's clearly a scam in which participants gain book value only to the extent that there is an every growing number of idiots willing to continue participating, i.e. a 'Ponzi-like Scheme' for all intents and purposes. "Bitcoin doesn't "burn oil", it's at 55-60% renewable" - 'it doesn't matter' from which source it draws energy because it's effectively (by and large) the same pool of energy that other, far more useful mechanations are bidding on and drawing from, and of course, it's an enormous amount of energy wasted. "As for relevancy, it has an exponentially growing user base" Which is false, it has zero user base, because it can't be 'used' for anything, which is the entire point. "A trillion dollar market cap " again a bit 'clueless' to get into pedantic definitions because that has absolutely nothing to do with what a 'market cap' is. Bitcoin had some promise even as it was a little bit of a hustle, it never materialized, now it's a total waste of time and energy. People can waste each other's time, but not our energy. Thankfully, it's so wasteful politicians will eventually hone in and ban mining it, they'll have no choice.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    In both the generous definition of a ponzi or the technical one, Bitcoin doesn't fit in. Words matter. Neither does it fit any definition of a scam. A scam has a central owner, trying to rug-pull somebody. Bitcoin doesn't have any owner or central organization behind it. You have no point. I already explained how it's secure savings technology. Hence if you use Bitcoin for that, you're a user, and it has a use. You lack even the most basic understanding of Bitcoin as mining cannot be banned. If you outlaw large scale mining, as recently done in China, the Bitcoin hash rate recovers in mere weeks. Which is what just happened. Even if you'd outlaw any and all large scale mining in the US, it will just move to another country. Many happy to host such a profitable business. Many places with surplus energy. And if that fails, we just go back to home mining, which would decentralize Bitcoin further. Drawing power from a solar panel, what exactly are you or the government going to do about it? None of this will even happen as it won't be banned in the US.