4 ms·

Bitcoin is the current one. Bitcoin is the most important piece of engineering since the Manhattan Project. It's an iterative solver that runs through the world

Bitcoin is the current one. Bitcoin is the most important piece of engineering since the Manhattan Project. It's an iterative solver that runs through the world economy, forcing each power station to decide whether to use their energy for local purposes or a shared goal, creating a shared stock market for energy thereby forcing the world into a new economy like in Star Trek by finally yielding a shared consensus on the true cost of energy as an asset. It really annoys me people aren't as excited by it as I am. edit: the number of downvotes on this will act as a record of whether people here are interested in the scientific method of discussing things they disagree with, or the nazi method of banning things they dislike editedit: in this thread, please remember you were looking for the thing everyone else said was wrong

rubatuga 5y ago
It’s a cancer. Of course cancer only thinks of itself.
- kayamon 5y ago
  wut
naikrovek 5y ago
it's a scam and has value only to those who have been tricked into believing it has value. > the most important piece of engineering since the Manhattan Project that says it all doesn't it? if you think that a Blockchain is as important as the Manhattan project, you have been "converted" and are almost certainly so far away that logic cannot reach you.
- kayamon 5y ago
  You haven't actually engaged with any of the points I made. This is not science.
  - anon9384929 5y ago
    “The true cost of energy of an asset” I work in the energy industry and I think people haven’t engaged your points because they’re completely incoherent without you significantly expanding upon them. Respectfully, the way you’ve phrased your points makes it clear you aren’t an expert in energy markets, which makes someone like me unwilling to engage in a debate without you making your case much more clearly up front. (If this seems arrogant, consider debating somebody who has a rudimentary understanding of Python making declarations about the next revolution in distributed systems, or something like that…)
    - kayamon 5y ago
      I like the idea that you wouldn't talk to someone you consider stupider than you.
      - anon9384929 5y ago
        You can’t call out the other guy for not acknowledging your points and then not acknowledge mine. Your points aren’t coherent, so lay them out better if you want people to engage. They other person isn’t malicious, they just don’t see you as commenting in good faith if we all know you aren’t an expert but are commenting (rather hostilely) as if you are one.
wittycardio 5y ago
Wow you people are truly delusional
- kayamon 5y ago
  "You people" implies identity politics instead of discussion of actual ideas. This is not science.
  - wittycardio 5y ago
    There was nothing substantive to discuss in the ops comment. It's just funny.
  - anon9384929 5y ago
    “This is not science” - you keep saying that as if an online forum should be a peer reviewed, etc. thing. It makes you sound childish. You haven’t laid out any coherent points and continue not to.
cuteboy19 5y ago
Fine, let's go through this one by one The "shared goal" is burning electricity for no good reason. Bitcoin did the same calculations with 10 WHr that it does with 100 TWHr. The true cost of energy was already known before Bitcoin. It's the amount of money people are willing to exchange for some unit of electricity. All Bitcoin did was raise this known cost a little higher for computing redundant calculations. The energy that you put into Bitcoin can never be gained back. It's a consumer of electricity, not a store. Star Treks economy was a utopian communist system. How is a hypercapitalist system ever going to approach that? Finally, this whole question is not a scientific question in the first place. It is a mathematical one. Mathematically, is the cash flow within bitcoin the same as a ponzi scheme? The answer is yes, since there is no source of net revenue and older investors are paid off using newer investors money
- kayamon 5y ago
  The energy was already generated. Imagine you're a power company. You gotta sell your energy. Who do you sell it to? Locally? To that price-fixed monopoly who have exclusive control simply because they happen to be physically located near your very heavy and hard-to-move power station? Or do you mine Bitcoin? As long as a free market exists, for whatever stupid ass reason, a fair economy will result from those economic pressures.
  - cuteboy19 5y ago
    People are already restarting old coal plants to mine btc. This whole "it was wasted energy anyways" idea is nonsense.
  - anon9384929 5y ago
    This is fundamentally not how power markets work. You offer to sell the grid power before it is produced - you have this backwards. You sell it to anybody you want (some regulations aside). The grid operator makes it available to anybody who wants to plug into the grid. There are many regulations that make it such that anybody who wants to plug into the grid can do so as long as it’s not destabilizing, and even then, they’ll often work with you. If you were an expert in energy markets, you’d see that you can go to an ISO and see which entities are market participants - of which utilities are just a few. I could, and regularly do, sell some random company power that the grid / transmission operator HAVE to transport for me as long as I’m not physically destabilizing the grid by messing with frequencies, etc. You also have the location of the power stations backwards. We choose to build power stations in an area because we see unmet or growing demand, not because some utility showed up and demanded we do it… Pretty much all of your arguments so far are based on premises that simply aren’t true.

rubatuga 5y ago

It’s a cancer. Of course cancer only thinks of itself.

kayamon 5y ago
wut

naikrovek 5y ago

it's a scam and has value only to those who have been tricked into believing it has value. > the most important piece of engineering since the Manhattan Project that says it all doesn't it? if you think that a Blockchain is as important as the Manhattan project, you have been "converted" and are almost certainly so far away that logic cannot reach you.

kayamon 5y ago
You haven't actually engaged with any of the points I made. This is not science.
- anon9384929 5y ago
  “The true cost of energy of an asset” I work in the energy industry and I think people haven’t engaged your points because they’re completely incoherent without you significantly expanding upon them. Respectfully, the way you’ve phrased your points makes it clear you aren’t an expert in energy markets, which makes someone like me unwilling to engage in a debate without you making your case much more clearly up front. (If this seems arrogant, consider debating somebody who has a rudimentary understanding of Python making declarations about the next revolution in distributed systems, or something like that…)
  - kayamon 5y ago
    I like the idea that you wouldn't talk to someone you consider stupider than you.
    - anon9384929 5y ago
      You can’t call out the other guy for not acknowledging your points and then not acknowledge mine. Your points aren’t coherent, so lay them out better if you want people to engage. They other person isn’t malicious, they just don’t see you as commenting in good faith if we all know you aren’t an expert but are commenting (rather hostilely) as if you are one.

wittycardio 5y ago

Wow you people are truly delusional

kayamon 5y ago
"You people" implies identity politics instead of discussion of actual ideas. This is not science.
- wittycardio 5y ago
  There was nothing substantive to discuss in the ops comment. It's just funny.
- anon9384929 5y ago
  “This is not science” - you keep saying that as if an online forum should be a peer reviewed, etc. thing. It makes you sound childish. You haven’t laid out any coherent points and continue not to.

cuteboy19 5y ago

Fine, let's go through this one by one The "shared goal" is burning electricity for no good reason. Bitcoin did the same calculations with 10 WHr that it does with 100 TWHr. The true cost of energy was already known before Bitcoin. It's the amount of money people are willing to exchange for some unit of electricity. All Bitcoin did was raise this known cost a little higher for computing redundant calculations. The energy that you put into Bitcoin can never be gained back. It's a consumer of electricity, not a store. Star Treks economy was a utopian communist system. How is a hypercapitalist system ever going to approach that? Finally, this whole question is not a scientific question in the first place. It is a mathematical one. Mathematically, is the cash flow within bitcoin the same as a ponzi scheme? The answer is yes, since there is no source of net revenue and older investors are paid off using newer investors money

kayamon 5y ago
The energy was already generated. Imagine you're a power company. You gotta sell your energy. Who do you sell it to? Locally? To that price-fixed monopoly who have exclusive control simply because they happen to be physically located near your very heavy and hard-to-move power station? Or do you mine Bitcoin? As long as a free market exists, for whatever stupid ass reason, a fair economy will result from those economic pressures.
- cuteboy19 5y ago
  People are already restarting old coal plants to mine btc. This whole "it was wasted energy anyways" idea is nonsense.
- anon9384929 5y ago
  This is fundamentally not how power markets work. You offer to sell the grid power before it is produced - you have this backwards. You sell it to anybody you want (some regulations aside). The grid operator makes it available to anybody who wants to plug into the grid. There are many regulations that make it such that anybody who wants to plug into the grid can do so as long as it’s not destabilizing, and even then, they’ll often work with you. If you were an expert in energy markets, you’d see that you can go to an ISO and see which entities are market participants - of which utilities are just a few. I could, and regularly do, sell some random company power that the grid / transmission operator HAVE to transport for me as long as I’m not physically destabilizing the grid by messing with frequencies, etc. You also have the location of the power stations backwards. We choose to build power stations in an area because we see unmet or growing demand, not because some utility showed up and demanded we do it… Pretty much all of your arguments so far are based on premises that simply aren’t true.