2 ms·

There is a lot of flatly wrong information there, sorry. First off, there are other cryptocurrencies which function better than Bitcoin in every aspect - effic

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.
sshine 4y ago
> > Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) > [...] Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring". The word "boring" has a very not obvious meaning here. Clearly there's nothing boring about Ethereum, since it's a high-stakes experiment involving computer science, economics and a lot of money. Ethereum is really "too interesting". > [...] huge amount of energy [is] completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped. Care to back that up? To my knowledge, PoW offers an unambiguous measure of what block to bet on. On the other hand, PoS is either subvertible (capable of being overthrown), or subjective (not objectively verifiable) when determining what block to bet on. Maybe you are referring to a proof-of-something-else-entirely. > Acting as if [Bitcoin's] so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre I totally agree. Bitcoin's origin is atypical in that there weren't widely adopted cryptocurrencies before it. Any subsequent cryptocurrency happened in the light of Bitcoin. But a hype train is a hype train, and there was one for Bitcoin. It just didn't enter with an ICO or a similar financing model delivering promises, which makes it seem less scammy.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  > Care to back that up? Block Lattice crypto. It's neither PoW or PoS. Here are the top two DDG results for "block lattice explained": https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-lattice-19641a8d8ff1 https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-la... https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-lattice/ https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-latti... Some hard numbers for Nano, as an example of block lattice tech: > Nano uses 0.000112 kwh hours per transaction compared to Bitcoin’s 950 KWH > The entire Nano network is so efficient that, operating at 7000tps, it can be powered by a single wind turbine - https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-eco-friendly-cryptocurrency https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-ec... Nano is feeless (with anti-spam mechanics), with all (minimal) costs per transaction borne by the "nodes" that keep the network running. Transactions are often confirmed in less than a second. This isn't bullshit or vaporware, it's running right now and you can try it yourself - https://www.trynano.io/ https://www.trynano.io/ As far as security, no one has broken it in 7 years. While I'm not equipped to evaluate the maths, I hear block lattice is more "quantum resistant" than ECC. Bitcoin outperforms Nano in sunk costs, hype / false info, and held bags. On every other objective and useful measure, it's not even remotely close.

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.

sshine 4y ago

> > Ethereum (functioning as a distributed VM: boring, and funded by VCs: double boring) > [...] Many enforce scarcity and are non-programmatic, without being "boring". The word "boring" has a very not obvious meaning here. Clearly there's nothing boring about Ethereum, since it's a high-stakes experiment involving computer science, economics and a lot of money. Ethereum is really "too interesting". > [...] huge amount of energy [is] completely unnecessary to the enforcement of scarcity. Saying otherwise is a harmful lie - you've been duped. Care to back that up? To my knowledge, PoW offers an unambiguous measure of what block to bet on. On the other hand, PoS is either subvertible (capable of being overthrown), or subjective (not objectively verifiable) when determining what block to bet on. Maybe you are referring to a proof-of-something-else-entirely. > Acting as if [Bitcoin's] so-call "organic" emergence puts it ahead of subsequent evolutions is bizarre I totally agree. Bitcoin's origin is atypical in that there weren't widely adopted cryptocurrencies before it. Any subsequent cryptocurrency happened in the light of Bitcoin. But a hype train is a hype train, and there was one for Bitcoin. It just didn't enter with an ICO or a similar financing model delivering promises, which makes it seem less scammy.

mandmandam 4y ago
> Care to back that up? Block Lattice crypto. It's neither PoW or PoS. Here are the top two DDG results for "block lattice explained": https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-lattice-19641a8d8ff1 https://medium.com/swlh/what-you-need-to-know-about-block-la... https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-lattice/ https://blog.metalpay.com/metalpay/understanding-block-latti... Some hard numbers for Nano, as an example of block lattice tech: > Nano uses 0.000112 kwh hours per transaction compared to Bitcoin’s 950 KWH > The entire Nano network is so efficient that, operating at 7000tps, it can be powered by a single wind turbine - https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-eco-friendly-cryptocurrency https://cryptodaily.co.uk/2018/09/is-nano-really-the-most-ec... Nano is feeless (with anti-spam mechanics), with all (minimal) costs per transaction borne by the "nodes" that keep the network running. Transactions are often confirmed in less than a second. This isn't bullshit or vaporware, it's running right now and you can try it yourself - https://www.trynano.io/ https://www.trynano.io/ As far as security, no one has broken it in 7 years. While I'm not equipped to evaluate the maths, I hear block lattice is more "quantum resistant" than ECC. Bitcoin outperforms Nano in sunk costs, hype / false info, and held bags. On every other objective and useful measure, it's not even remotely close.