3 ms·
It is pointless virtue signalling because the primary argument for ending bitcoin donations is about energy usage, but the effect of ending bitcoin donations wi
by sparkie 5y ago
It is pointless virtue signalling because the primary argument for ending bitcoin donations is about energy usage, but the effect of ending bitcoin donations will have precisely zero impact on the amount of electricity used by the bitcoin network.
This isn't the same as when you boycott a company's products and it causes a loss of sales.
- lxgr 5y agoAccepting or spending Bitcoin increases its utility quadratically per participant (via the network effect). Utility increases utilization, which increases fees, which incentivize mining. It really is exactly the same thing as boycotting a company.
- sparkie 5y agoThe majority of miner revenue is a subsidy given via inflation. It's effectively paid for by all bitcoin holders, and is decoupled from usage and fees. Fewer people transacting is going to make no difference. Miners aren't going to suddenly think "Oh, perhaps I should mine less now that these clowns at Wikimedia aren't taking donations."
- lxgr 5y agoThis is the case now, but every halving shifts that proportion towards fees.
- sparkie 5y agoCorrect, but miners are operating on the assumption of revenue now, and not 8 or 12 years down the line when transaction fees eventually exceed the block subsidy. By that time, the network effect will be so large that Wikimedia will not be able to just ignore it to pacify a small group of whining overgrown children.