4 ms·

But, governments with militaries also protect crypto assets. Like when the DOJ went after Frosties founders, or more recently, SK and Do Kwon. There's also the

But, governments with militaries also protect crypto assets. Like when the DOJ went after Frosties founders, or more recently, SK and Do Kwon. There's also the CFTC and the SEC fighting over who will regulate the space. Even the most charitable argument, that crypto-relieved folks are trying to get governments involved.

toolz 4y ago
Of course, that's why it's muddy on how you should compare the energy costs. Bitcoins energy costs are 99.9% related to protecting the asset, they are not related to the functionality of the system. Likewise financial systems have little to do with protecting fiat, banks are backed by governments businesses like paypal hold money in banks, etc. So to compare bitcoins energy consumption to an entity that spend energy in an unrelated way isn't entirely fair - there is some merit there, but not much.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Visa and Paypal's energy use to secure their transaction records and assets from cyberattack is included in their much smaller energy use though; the fact they do so in a more energy efficient manner doesn't make the comparison unfair. Bitcoin's energy use contributes no more towards preventing armed antagonists destroying or seizing assets, harming their economic value by destroying the underlying economy or compromising the network by seizing ASIC farms than Visa's. Bitcoiners outsource that bit to governments too.
social_quotient 4y ago
Read his comment as Bitcoin specifically not crypto generically.
mattwilsonn888 4y ago
Ignore all your examples, they are completely irrelevant, centrally controlled assets that operate on a layer that gives the option of decentralized control. Bitcoin can perform without a government - the involvement desired by some people is not at all, nor is it claimed to be, or understood by anyone but you, to be necessary to the healthy functioning of Bitcoin or other sufficiently decentralized open protocols.

toolz 4y ago

Of course, that's why it's muddy on how you should compare the energy costs. Bitcoins energy costs are 99.9% related to protecting the asset, they are not related to the functionality of the system. Likewise financial systems have little to do with protecting fiat, banks are backed by governments businesses like paypal hold money in banks, etc. So to compare bitcoins energy consumption to an entity that spend energy in an unrelated way isn't entirely fair - there is some merit there, but not much.

notahacker 4y ago
Visa and Paypal's energy use to secure their transaction records and assets from cyberattack is included in their much smaller energy use though; the fact they do so in a more energy efficient manner doesn't make the comparison unfair. Bitcoin's energy use contributes no more towards preventing armed antagonists destroying or seizing assets, harming their economic value by destroying the underlying economy or compromising the network by seizing ASIC farms than Visa's. Bitcoiners outsource that bit to governments too.

social_quotient 4y ago

Read his comment as Bitcoin specifically not crypto generically.

mattwilsonn888 4y ago

Ignore all your examples, they are completely irrelevant, centrally controlled assets that operate on a layer that gives the option of decentralized control. Bitcoin can perform without a government - the involvement desired by some people is not at all, nor is it claimed to be, or understood by anyone but you, to be necessary to the healthy functioning of Bitcoin or other sufficiently decentralized open protocols.