3 ms·

Worst case scenario deposits are not safe in banks. Best case scenario all deposits are insured by 31T national debt. All roads lead to Bitcoin

pcthrowaway 4y ago
As an actual crypto enthusiast, I fucking hope not. Can you imagine if the entire planet switched to using proof of work cryptocurrency? The energy usage of the network would dwarf that of the largest country.
- mlcrypto 4y ago
  How much energy does it take to defend the US dollar currently?
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    Less than the Bitcoin network would use if the entire world switched to it. At it's current usage where maybe 2-3% of the global population has ever actually performed a transaction on the bitcoin network, and next to no one uses it as their primary network for transacting, it used the equivalent energy of the entire country of Brazil, which has half the U.S. population (though less than half the energy usage) To be clear, the energy usage is a function of price more directly than it is of actual usage, it just so happens that the price would continue to increase if people actually used it for real-world transactions.
    - mlcrypto 4y ago
      The energy usage is worth it compared to fiat that is defended by the military industrial complex: https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1491826850569637889?t=P3YCFbA-w6hBgaYRBHRhjg&s=19 https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1491826850569637889?... I also don't think there's anything inherently immoral about energy usage. Bitcoin can theoretically help us access remote natural sources of energy and convert it to wealth instantaneously with just an internet connection when otherwise it would be infeasible to transport
      - pcthrowaway 4y ago
        I, too, dislike some thing about fiat. But the real question is how is the energy usage "worth it" compared to other cryptocurrencies that wouldn't consume 20000 Twh /yr (more energy than is currently produced on earth) like Bitcoin would in this wet dream fantasy of yours?
        mlcrypto 4y ago
        Proof of work is the key innovation that secures the decentralized network. Thinking that something is possible with no energy is the real fantasy land of scammers (aka proof of stake)
        pcthrowaway 4y ago
        Proof of stake has some measures of security that proof of work doesn't. Essentially, the cost to perform a consensus for a bad actor (or set of bad actors) attack might actually be higher. We've already seen centralization of mining pools on the bitcoin network, very nearly leading to 51% attacks on multiple occasions. We've also seen "Eth Classic" and several other proof of work networks suffer consensus attacks. Of course, there are ways the proof of work model is better too. There's tradeoffs both ways. But nothing offered by cryptocurrency makes up for the enormous energy usage of proof of work at scale, so the other consensus mechanisms are the only real, sustainable models for world-wide adoption

pcthrowaway 4y ago

As an actual crypto enthusiast, I fucking hope not. Can you imagine if the entire planet switched to using proof of work cryptocurrency? The energy usage of the network would dwarf that of the largest country.

mlcrypto 4y ago
How much energy does it take to defend the US dollar currently?
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  Less than the Bitcoin network would use if the entire world switched to it. At it's current usage where maybe 2-3% of the global population has ever actually performed a transaction on the bitcoin network, and next to no one uses it as their primary network for transacting, it used the equivalent energy of the entire country of Brazil, which has half the U.S. population (though less than half the energy usage) To be clear, the energy usage is a function of price more directly than it is of actual usage, it just so happens that the price would continue to increase if people actually used it for real-world transactions.
  - mlcrypto 4y ago
    The energy usage is worth it compared to fiat that is defended by the military industrial complex: https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1491826850569637889?t=P3YCFbA-w6hBgaYRBHRhjg&s=19 https://twitter.com/JasonPLowery/status/1491826850569637889?... I also don't think there's anything inherently immoral about energy usage. Bitcoin can theoretically help us access remote natural sources of energy and convert it to wealth instantaneously with just an internet connection when otherwise it would be infeasible to transport
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      I, too, dislike some thing about fiat. But the real question is how is the energy usage "worth it" compared to other cryptocurrencies that wouldn't consume 20000 Twh /yr (more energy than is currently produced on earth) like Bitcoin would in this wet dream fantasy of yours?
      - mlcrypto 4y ago
        Proof of work is the key innovation that secures the decentralized network. Thinking that something is possible with no energy is the real fantasy land of scammers (aka proof of stake)
        pcthrowaway 4y ago
        Proof of stake has some measures of security that proof of work doesn't. Essentially, the cost to perform a consensus for a bad actor (or set of bad actors) attack might actually be higher. We've already seen centralization of mining pools on the bitcoin network, very nearly leading to 51% attacks on multiple occasions. We've also seen "Eth Classic" and several other proof of work networks suffer consensus attacks. Of course, there are ways the proof of work model is better too. There's tradeoffs both ways. But nothing offered by cryptocurrency makes up for the enormous energy usage of proof of work at scale, so the other consensus mechanisms are the only real, sustainable models for world-wide adoption