5 ms·

> The metaphysical properties of Bitcoin are independent of the metaphysical nature of numbers. The fact that Bitcoin is “just numbers” is unimportant. What is

by dvt 4y ago

> The metaphysical properties of Bitcoin are independent of the metaphysical nature of numbers. The fact that Bitcoin is “just numbers” is unimportant. What is important is the process that brings about these numbers, which is a process that can’t be faked, cheated, or simulated. We know, without a doubt, that the only way to bring a valid bitcoin block into existence is by expending real energy in the real world. I'm not a BTC maxi in any sense of that term, but I do agree that the most interesting cryptocurrency (economically-speaking) is, by far, Bitcoin. It emerged purely organically, it enforces scarcity, and it provides no "utility" other than "value." It's not like Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum). In other words, I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will.

kranke155 4y ago
Explain to me how Bitcoin survives in a world where miner rewards collapse or cease to exist - ie after all Bitcoin are done being unlocked through PoW. Ah he idea that Ethereum was funded by VCs is a really funny one, that has very little relation to reality. The funding was actually quite small.
- dvt 4y ago
  > Ah he idea that Ethereum was funded by VCs is a really funny one, that has very little relation to reality. The funding was actually quite small. Oh come on, Buterin was knighted by Thiel as some kind of boy genius. Buterin also spoke at TC Disrupt, etc. The argument that VCs played no role in Ethereum's meteoric growth is plain wrong.
  - kranke155 4y ago
    He talked about VC funding. Vitalik won the Thiel Fellowship which afaik is open to anyone. Please provide further evidence of how VC funding made Ethereum, because off the books I’ve read on its origins, yeah there was some money out in at the start but nothing too crazy.
- _Algernon_ 4y ago
  >Explain to me how Bitcoin survives in a world where miner rewards collapse or cease to exist - ie after all Bitcoin are done being unlocked through PoW. The second part of the miner reward consists of transaction fees which will compensate. Most small scale transactions will be done on second layers such as lightning, thus being unaffected, while big transactions for which the extra security is worth it will be willing to pay the high transaction fees.
  - paulgb 4y ago
    Transaction fees currently makes up 1-2% of the reward and don’t seem to be growing.
    - rieTohgh6 4y ago
      In theory fees should rise whenever there is congestion but it also leads to people complaining about their low-fee transaction being stuck in limbo (mempool). As long as there is free space in block it makes sense for miners to include any non-zero free transaction, so it is a race to bottom with only occasional surges, kinda like the ones that happen in Uber.
      - danuker 4y ago
        Right now, there is a wasteful amount of security, because the rate of adoption (and price growth) could not be predicted. Almost $800k is burnt hourly. Very few people need to transfer that much, and those who do, can wait for extra confirmations. https://www.crypto51.app/ https://www.crypto51.app/ I would like to see the block reward reduced even SOONER. Halvenings every 4 years is too slow. But I don't think it's going to happen sadly. As for fees, they could be driven higher by limiting block size, should the community decide they need more security once the block reward becomes too small. Point is: the algorithm is not infallible, and would have to adapt. Otherwise Bitcoin becomes brittle.
  - bhaak 4y ago
    Shouldn't we see some of effect by now? I think we should but what we see is that other blockchains get used more and there the fees go up: https://cryptofees.info/ https://cryptofees.info/ To me, this looks like demand is going to cheaper blockchains instead of scaling on Bitcoin L2 solutions.
- kordlessagain 4y ago
  > The funding was actually quite small. The loss of something (in multiple hacks of various coins) is still an "investment", for those using it.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  Ez. The majority of miners vote to increase the number of Bitcoins. Don't worry it's just a small number and a one time thing. Maybe. And for those purists out there Bitcoin classic will still be a thing! Sure nobody is using it and it's worth nothing...
  - itsthemmrvax 4y ago
sshine 4y ago
> ... or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum). #notallblockchains! The privacy-focused blockchains generally resemble Bitcoin + zero-knowledge: UTXO-based, commitment schemes instead of a shared, public global state.
- once_inc 4y ago
  Note that this can be forked into Bitcoin if this feature turns out to be very desirable.
- viridian 4y ago
  As much as I agree with you, I also don't think it really behooves any of us who possess or transact in these to go singing their praises without thought given to the audience. The speculators are a net negative to the utility of these assets, and the more time living in markets without the attention of centralized financial authorities, the better.
mandmandam 4y ago
There is a lot of flatly wrong information there, sorry. First off, there are other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect - efficiency, speed, security. Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring". > We know, without a doubt, that the only way to bring a valid bitcoin block into existence is by expending real energy in the real world. That's not remotely true. Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement. Bitcoin is using a huge amount of energy and it IS completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped. > It emerged purely organically Seriously? It "emerged" through a secretive pseudonym. No one can say whether it was even completely created by an individual, and not a secretive organization with ulterior motives. Acting as if this so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre, and I hope you can see that once it's pointed out. Would you claim the Wright brother's plane is more organic and therefore more long-lived as a design? Edison's lightbulb? How about version 1.0 of Windows? Is whale oil more organic and therefore better than fusion power? Bitcoin will be around in a hundred years - in the museum of human folly. "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol".
- once_inc 4y ago
  Both > other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect and > Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement are false statements of fact. To date, there have been no alternatives to bitcoin that are functioning better than bitcoin, because Bitcoin remains the most secure, most scarce digital asset. All other chains attempt to improve certain metrics at a cost of either decreasing decentralisation, increasing attack vectors/attack surface, or increasing the codebase complexity significantly. > "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol" This is also an often debated point. The fact is that this is a multi-faceted discussion with a vast array of nuance and arguments to and fro. Yes, bitcoin is being mined on coal energy, also yes: Bitcoin is being used to reduce the amount of methane emissions. Simply framing this as a "bitcoin uses energy" discussion and not a "bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions" which is what the discussion actually should be is reason enough to scratch yourself on the head whether you are actively pushing biased arguments. And yes, this discussion (Bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions) is something most Bitcoiners have discussed and researched to a point where they can comfortably back this concept.
jollybean 4y ago
??? history does not care what is boring and what is 'backed by VCs'. The most applicable things, those that people find useful and gain market share, will be used. How long they are used depends on other things. Hopefully, Bitcoin will be seen for what it is in 10 or so years, an experiment gone awry, absorbing far too much time and talent, and in 100 years nobody will fathom what BTC was just as we don't remember the names of any 'spindle' manufacturers from 100 years ago. Digital currency will surely exist.
tromp 4y ago
> or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum). This is a gross mischaracterization of altcoins. Some try to provide the same functionality as Bitcoin but with greater simplicity, better scalability and privacy (Mimblewimble blockchains), and a fairer emission.
anonymous_sorry 4y ago
> I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will. Bitcoin is fascinating. A kind of memetic virus feeding on vast amounts of energy via human mindshare. The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it.
- bhaak 4y ago
  > The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. Only if it keeps its insane valuation. If its value goes down so will the hash rate. > I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it. It could be surpassed by another crypto currency. If that happens it will be very interesting to see if its value proposition still holds (gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays) or if only a few enthusiasts will continue mining it. If the latter happens the hashrate will collapse.
  - danuker 4y ago
    Also, the inflationary block reward will go down exponentially.
  - bpye 4y ago
    > gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays Whilst largely unrelated to it's value, gold does have useful applications as it is resistant to corrosion and has high electrical conductivity. I'm not convinced Bitcoin even has some equivalent of that...
- olalonde 4y ago
  > PoW may have to be regulated out of existence Why? How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.
jrm4 4y ago
Weird. I'm fairly certain you're exactly wrong. This requires getting into the weeds of the tech, but in summary: Bitcoin is the Model T or the grey brick cellphone of crypto. On one hand, it's the proof of concept that proves the thing can work, and thus changes tech forever. But also, it won't be "the thing" because its tech is inferior to what comes next, and I think it's smarter to bet on the quality of the tech than anything else. I'm not sure if Ethereum is the next thing, though it's a strong contender. I am nearly certain that bitcoin eventually will not be "the thing;" especially given that the whole point of most crypto is fungibility.

by dvt 4y ago

kranke155 4y ago

Explain to me how Bitcoin survives in a world where miner rewards collapse or cease to exist - ie after all Bitcoin are done being unlocked through PoW. Ah he idea that Ethereum was funded by VCs is a really funny one, that has very little relation to reality. The funding was actually quite small.

dvt 4y ago
> Ah he idea that Ethereum was funded by VCs is a really funny one, that has very little relation to reality. The funding was actually quite small. Oh come on, Buterin was knighted by Thiel as some kind of boy genius. Buterin also spoke at TC Disrupt, etc. The argument that VCs played no role in Ethereum's meteoric growth is plain wrong.
- kranke155 4y ago
  He talked about VC funding. Vitalik won the Thiel Fellowship which afaik is open to anyone. Please provide further evidence of how VC funding made Ethereum, because off the books I’ve read on its origins, yeah there was some money out in at the start but nothing too crazy.
_Algernon_ 4y ago
>Explain to me how Bitcoin survives in a world where miner rewards collapse or cease to exist - ie after all Bitcoin are done being unlocked through PoW. The second part of the miner reward consists of transaction fees which will compensate. Most small scale transactions will be done on second layers such as lightning, thus being unaffected, while big transactions for which the extra security is worth it will be willing to pay the high transaction fees.
- paulgb 4y ago
  Transaction fees currently makes up 1-2% of the reward and don’t seem to be growing.
  - rieTohgh6 4y ago
    In theory fees should rise whenever there is congestion but it also leads to people complaining about their low-fee transaction being stuck in limbo (mempool). As long as there is free space in block it makes sense for miners to include any non-zero free transaction, so it is a race to bottom with only occasional surges, kinda like the ones that happen in Uber.
    - danuker 4y ago
      Right now, there is a wasteful amount of security, because the rate of adoption (and price growth) could not be predicted. Almost $800k is burnt hourly. Very few people need to transfer that much, and those who do, can wait for extra confirmations. https://www.crypto51.app/ https://www.crypto51.app/ I would like to see the block reward reduced even SOONER. Halvenings every 4 years is too slow. But I don't think it's going to happen sadly. As for fees, they could be driven higher by limiting block size, should the community decide they need more security once the block reward becomes too small. Point is: the algorithm is not infallible, and would have to adapt. Otherwise Bitcoin becomes brittle.
- bhaak 4y ago
  Shouldn't we see some of effect by now? I think we should but what we see is that other blockchains get used more and there the fees go up: https://cryptofees.info/ https://cryptofees.info/ To me, this looks like demand is going to cheaper blockchains instead of scaling on Bitcoin L2 solutions.
kordlessagain 4y ago
> The funding was actually quite small. The loss of something (in multiple hacks of various coins) is still an "investment", for those using it.
goosedragons 4y ago
Ez. The majority of miners vote to increase the number of Bitcoins. Don't worry it's just a small number and a one time thing. Maybe. And for those purists out there Bitcoin classic will still be a thing! Sure nobody is using it and it's worth nothing...
- itsthemmrvax 4y ago

sshine 4y ago

> ... or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum). #notallblockchains! The privacy-focused blockchains generally resemble Bitcoin + zero-knowledge: UTXO-based, commitment schemes instead of a shared, public global state.

once_inc 4y ago
Note that this can be forked into Bitcoin if this feature turns out to be very desirable.
viridian 4y ago
As much as I agree with you, I also don't think it really behooves any of us who possess or transact in these to go singing their praises without thought given to the audience. The speculators are a net negative to the utility of these assets, and the more time living in markets without the attention of centralized financial authorities, the better.

mandmandam 4y ago

There is a lot of flatly wrong information there, sorry. First off, there are other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect - efficiency, speed, security. Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring". > We know, without a doubt, that the only way to bring a valid bitcoin block into existence is by expending real energy in the real world. That's not remotely true. Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement. Bitcoin is using a huge amount of energy and it IS completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped. > It emerged purely organically Seriously? It "emerged" through a secretive pseudonym. No one can say whether it was even completely created by an individual, and not a secretive organization with ulterior motives. Acting as if this so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre, and I hope you can see that once it's pointed out. Would you claim the Wright brother's plane is more organic and therefore more long-lived as a design? Edison's lightbulb? How about version 1.0 of Windows? Is whale oil more organic and therefore better than fusion power? Bitcoin will be around in a hundred years - in the museum of human folly. "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol".

once_inc 4y ago
Both > other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect and > Block lattice tech has been around for seven years now, utterly disproving that statement are false statements of fact. To date, there have been no alternatives to bitcoin that are functioning better than bitcoin, because Bitcoin remains the most secure, most scarce digital asset. All other chains attempt to improve certain metrics at a cost of either decreasing decentralisation, increasing attack vectors/attack surface, or increasing the codebase complexity significantly. > "People used to think the only way to enforce scarcity was by burning their planet to a fucking cinder, lol" This is also an often debated point. The fact is that this is a multi-faceted discussion with a vast array of nuance and arguments to and fro. Yes, bitcoin is being mined on coal energy, also yes: Bitcoin is being used to reduce the amount of methane emissions. Simply framing this as a "bitcoin uses energy" discussion and not a "bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions" which is what the discussion actually should be is reason enough to scratch yourself on the head whether you are actively pushing biased arguments. And yes, this discussion (Bitcoin mining leads to carbon emissions) is something most Bitcoiners have discussed and researched to a point where they can comfortably back this concept.

jollybean 4y ago

??? history does not care what is boring and what is 'backed by VCs'. The most applicable things, those that people find useful and gain market share, will be used. How long they are used depends on other things. Hopefully, Bitcoin will be seen for what it is in 10 or so years, an experiment gone awry, absorbing far too much time and talent, and in 100 years nobody will fathom what BTC was just as we don't remember the names of any 'spindle' manufacturers from 100 years ago. Digital currency will surely exist.

tromp 4y ago

> or any other blockchain (which basically is just trying to copy Ethereum). This is a gross mischaracterization of altcoins. Some try to provide the same functionality as Bitcoin but with greater simplicity, better scalability and privacy (Mimblewimble blockchains), and a fairer emission.

anonymous_sorry 4y ago

> I'm not sure if Ethereum will be around 100 years from now, but I'm pretty sure Bitcoin will. Bitcoin is fascinating. A kind of memetic virus feeding on vast amounts of energy via human mindshare. The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it.

bhaak 4y ago
> The thought of 100 years of proof of work is pretty scary though. Only if it keeps its insane valuation. If its value goes down so will the hash rate. > I think eventually PoW may have to be regulated out of existence. It's not ideal, but with Bitcoin lacking any real governance or organisation, I don't see any other way of fixing it. It could be surpassed by another crypto currency. If that happens it will be very interesting to see if its value proposition still holds (gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays) or if only a few enthusiasts will continue mining it. If the latter happens the hashrate will collapse.
- danuker 4y ago
  Also, the inflationary block reward will go down exponentially.
- bpye 4y ago
  > gold is still considered valuable even though it is also only a meme asset nowadays Whilst largely unrelated to it's value, gold does have useful applications as it is resistant to corrosion and has high electrical conductivity. I'm not convinced Bitcoin even has some equivalent of that...
olalonde 4y ago
> PoW may have to be regulated out of existence Why? How about we regulate things that pollute instead, like burning coal. PoW does not pollute nor emit greenhouse gases.

jrm4 4y ago

Weird. I'm fairly certain you're exactly wrong. This requires getting into the weeds of the tech, but in summary: Bitcoin is the Model T or the grey brick cellphone of crypto. On one hand, it's the proof of concept that proves the thing can work, and thus changes tech forever. But also, it won't be "the thing" because its tech is inferior to what comes next, and I think it's smarter to bet on the quality of the tech than anything else. I'm not sure if Ethereum is the next thing, though it's a strong contender. I am nearly certain that bitcoin eventually will not be "the thing;" especially given that the whole point of most crypto is fungibility.