5 ms·

The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. Im in the do not think its a waste camp. And as mentioned

The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. Im in the do not think its a waste camp. And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
> The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm making no judgment at all as to whether validating transactions is a good use of energy. > And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase. Exactly, and your statement here 100% proves my point. Since the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, the only 2 options are (1) "the price levels off" as you put it - but the only way (long term) for the price to level off, when supply is restricted, is for demand to eventually wane. The other option (2) is for Bitcoin to eventually become a sizable portion of the financial system, in which case it's energy demands will grow proportionally. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that Bitcoin backers' position is not possibly consistent: either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus, in which case it means usage of Bitcoin will have plateaued as well. There is no middle option.
- trident5000 5y ago
  > either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely because that is a physical impossibility.
  - hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
    Again, you keep proving my point. Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now, because once it starts being used for "real commerce", demand will soar. There is just no getting around the fact that the more "popular" Bitcoin gets ("popularity" eventually has to show up in market cap) that its energy use will grow in lock step.
    - trident5000 5y ago
      No, I dont think I am. You specifically said “in proportion” to transaction volume, not as a non linear residual effect. That is an incorrect growth assumption. And frankly you’re editing your answers above too fast for me to keep up with.
freeflight 5y ago
> The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. That's not the only issue, another is how BC did not really deliver on what it originally promised. Instead, the whole cryptomarket seems to have simply turned a massive speculative market with more manipulation going on than any other financial market. So all these high and noble goals crypto originally started out on, have turned into a whole bunch of people just trying to make the largest profits, even if that means defrauding a whole bunch of people of their savings.
- trident5000 5y ago
  I think twitter announced bitcoin tipping last week and we have nations adopting it as a national currency (both wide scale implementations). I dont know how you can arrive at a "non delivery" conclusion.
  - freeflight 5y ago
    El Salvador adopted BC as an official legal tender, the first and only country to do so. Meanwhile, around the same time, China dropped it wholesale. El Salvador has 6 million people, China has around 1.4 billion people.

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

> The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not No, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm making no judgment at all as to whether validating transactions is a good use of energy. > And as mentioned above, the hash rate is not an infinite black hole, it levels off as the price levels off regardless of userbase. Exactly, and your statement here 100% proves my point. Since the total number of Bitcoins is fixed, the only 2 options are (1) "the price levels off" as you put it - but the only way (long term) for the price to level off, when supply is restricted, is for demand to eventually wane. The other option (2) is for Bitcoin to eventually become a sizable portion of the financial system, in which case it's energy demands will grow proportionally. The point I'm trying to emphasize is that Bitcoin backers' position is not possibly consistent: either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus, in which case it means usage of Bitcoin will have plateaued as well. There is no middle option.

trident5000 5y ago
> either Bitcoin becomes widely deployed for actually facilitating transactions, in which case its energy use grows proportionally, or its energy use plateaus Again thats not how it works. Energy usage does not grow in proportion with transactions. It grows in proportion to hash rate which is a function of market capitalization value. I can assure you the MC of bitcoin is not going to grow exponentially infinitely because that is a physical impossibility.
- hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
  Again, you keep proving my point. Yes, you are absolutely correct, energy usage is a function of market cap. But my point is that if people actually start using Bitcoin to facilitate transactions (instead of its primary purpose of a speculative asset as it exists today) then its market cap would explode. And again, this has been what Bitcoin proponents have been arguing forever now - that the time to "get in" is now, because once it starts being used for "real commerce", demand will soar. There is just no getting around the fact that the more "popular" Bitcoin gets ("popularity" eventually has to show up in market cap) that its energy use will grow in lock step.
  - trident5000 5y ago
    No, I dont think I am. You specifically said “in proportion” to transaction volume, not as a non linear residual effect. That is an incorrect growth assumption. And frankly you’re editing your answers above too fast for me to keep up with.

freeflight 5y ago

> The issue really comes down to that some people think its a waste of energy and some people do not. That's not the only issue, another is how BC did not really deliver on what it originally promised. Instead, the whole cryptomarket seems to have simply turned a massive speculative market with more manipulation going on than any other financial market. So all these high and noble goals crypto originally started out on, have turned into a whole bunch of people just trying to make the largest profits, even if that means defrauding a whole bunch of people of their savings.

trident5000 5y ago
I think twitter announced bitcoin tipping last week and we have nations adopting it as a national currency (both wide scale implementations). I dont know how you can arrive at a "non delivery" conclusion.
- freeflight 5y ago
  El Salvador adopted BC as an official legal tender, the first and only country to do so. Meanwhile, around the same time, China dropped it wholesale. El Salvador has 6 million people, China has around 1.4 billion people.