4 ms·

Well you should've continued reading. It's not about how much energy is used, it's about the fact that energy is used at all. The numbers can be extrapolated fr

Well you should've continued reading. It's not about how much energy is used, it's about the fact that energy is used at all. The numbers can be extrapolated from a third of that value and still look bad.

latchkey 4y ago
We all know bitcoin uses a lot of energy, there is no debate about that. But, on a global scale of all energy used, it is just a tiny tiny sliver of the pie (see my previous link). Just because something uses energy doesn't mean it is inherently bad. If you want to extrapolate and say that wasting energy on PoW is bad, then you also have to compare that against all of the other wasted energy. If you do, bitcoin doesn't look that bad either. Of course plenty of people here like to fixate on telling people what a good or not good use of energy is. Which is so ironic to me given that here we are using energy to have this debate and I'm sure someone out there thinks it is equally wasteful.
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  The article is not about energy usage, it's about capital outflow in the form of energy expenditure. As long as mimers must pay someone to keep running, either capital outflow must match capital inflow, or the price will go down, and consequently mining will decrease and with it security. Either way, not a good store of value.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Ok, so then this is the age old debate of what happens when mining ends? I guess I could have kept reading for some new insight there. Face palm.
    - betwixthewires 4y ago
      The age old debate about what happens when mining ends? When does mining end?
      - latchkey 4y ago
        Mining never ends, but the inflationary aspect does [0]. At which point, bitcoin will become unprofitable for most miners and they will shut down. A few who can remain profitable, from the transaction fees alone, will stick around and the end result is that energy usage will drop significantly. Unless, of course, miners vote in another consensus model before then (unlikely). This is a big reason why there is such a huge land grab of new miners coming online right now and a huge increase in power usage. It also solidifies the monetary policy imho. Once emissions stop, it'll become even harder to obtain what BTC is left and as long as it stays desirable for its intrinsic value (imho, that is digital gold... its store of value), people will want it. Don't forget that while 19m have been emitted, millions of that are locked up forever and will continue to get locked up over time (things like people who die suddenly without leaving access to their private keys). Thus, there is actually a lot less than 21m BTC that'll ever be available. ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° at the halving chart on that website. I usually don't think that past performance indicated future results... but come on... this is just obvious financial cycles. If you haven't already, you'd do well to buy $100 of bitcoin and just sit on it. [0] https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/ https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
        betwixthewires 4y ago
        OK, you mean when the creation of new bitcoin ends. No, that's not what the article is about. The article basically says any cryptocurrency that relies on mining cannot be a store of value because mining requires capital outflow which means your bitcoin loses value without continued capital inflow in the form of new demand. It is very likely miners vote in another consensus. There are ~118 years left before the supply capnis reached. If bitcoin lasts that long, it is highly likely that some major changes occur, consensus seems like the number 1 candidate for change. The end result of energy usage dropping... if the energy usage drops, the security does also. So price decrease results in less mining, and therefore less capital outflow, which is great, except it results in less security. the only way to get 0 capital outflow (and therefore require 0 capital inflow to keep a steady price) is to have 0 mining, which means no blocks being produced and no security, which again, does not make a good store of value.

latchkey 4y ago

We all know bitcoin uses a lot of energy, there is no debate about that. But, on a global scale of all energy used, it is just a tiny tiny sliver of the pie (see my previous link). Just because something uses energy doesn't mean it is inherently bad. If you want to extrapolate and say that wasting energy on PoW is bad, then you also have to compare that against all of the other wasted energy. If you do, bitcoin doesn't look that bad either. Of course plenty of people here like to fixate on telling people what a good or not good use of energy is. Which is so ironic to me given that here we are using energy to have this debate and I'm sure someone out there thinks it is equally wasteful.

betwixthewires 4y ago
The article is not about energy usage, it's about capital outflow in the form of energy expenditure. As long as mimers must pay someone to keep running, either capital outflow must match capital inflow, or the price will go down, and consequently mining will decrease and with it security. Either way, not a good store of value.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Ok, so then this is the age old debate of what happens when mining ends? I guess I could have kept reading for some new insight there. Face palm.
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    The age old debate about what happens when mining ends? When does mining end?
    - latchkey 4y ago
      Mining never ends, but the inflationary aspect does [0]. At which point, bitcoin will become unprofitable for most miners and they will shut down. A few who can remain profitable, from the transaction fees alone, will stick around and the end result is that energy usage will drop significantly. Unless, of course, miners vote in another consensus model before then (unlikely). This is a big reason why there is such a huge land grab of new miners coming online right now and a huge increase in power usage. It also solidifies the monetary policy imho. Once emissions stop, it'll become even harder to obtain what BTC is left and as long as it stays desirable for its intrinsic value (imho, that is digital gold... its store of value), people will want it. Don't forget that while 19m have been emitted, millions of that are locked up forever and will continue to get locked up over time (things like people who die suddenly without leaving access to their private keys). Thus, there is actually a lot less than 21m BTC that'll ever be available. ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° at the halving chart on that website. I usually don't think that past performance indicated future results... but come on... this is just obvious financial cycles. If you haven't already, you'd do well to buy $100 of bitcoin and just sit on it. [0] https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/ https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
      - betwixthewires 4y ago
        OK, you mean when the creation of new bitcoin ends. No, that's not what the article is about. The article basically says any cryptocurrency that relies on mining cannot be a store of value because mining requires capital outflow which means your bitcoin loses value without continued capital inflow in the form of new demand. It is very likely miners vote in another consensus. There are ~118 years left before the supply capnis reached. If bitcoin lasts that long, it is highly likely that some major changes occur, consensus seems like the number 1 candidate for change. The end result of energy usage dropping... if the energy usage drops, the security does also. So price decrease results in less mining, and therefore less capital outflow, which is great, except it results in less security. the only way to get 0 capital outflow (and therefore require 0 capital inflow to keep a steady price) is to have 0 mining, which means no blocks being produced and no security, which again, does not make a good store of value.