Bitcoin discussion and news

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

As if the point of any of this is to help the developing world.

 

[Dragon 24]

If that renewable energy wasn't being used by miners, it'd be used by other industries/people in place of fossil fuels.

And to the extent that the UK is representative of the western world (who produce either directly or via china/east asian production the majority of CO2 emissions) we are about to completely fuck our national grid and local substation level infra by trying to switch to electric cars and electric based heating. Rest of the world is going the same way with cars, I have no idea how many other places in the world need to switch significant amounts of energy use away from natural gas/propane/oil heating systems to electric ones. Last thing we need is another big drain on the electricity we can produce.
I realise it's an international problem which complicates things when considering electricity production at a practical level but the principle is clear - to move away from the age of oil and coal without reducing our energy consumption (and by proxy our standard of living) we need a fuckton of electricity, and something so wasteful as bitcoin (or any proof of work crypto) needs to be left behind.



This is a really, really simplistic view of what is happening. Printing money has been done to solve specific problems - in 2008/9 it was liquidity in the banking system, recently it's been this pandemic thingy and the need to keep money flowing around the economy whilst actual production drops massively. What would you have done to pay for 80% of the wages of people who got support under the furlough or self-employed support schemes?

Then the characterisation of simply printing money is wrong at a technical level, in a way that genuinely matters. QE is achieved by having the bank of england lend the UK goverment money. This money will, over time, be repaid and destroyed. It's setup as a temporary increase in the money supply and is not just printing money as a result.
As for long term results, how long do you want? Japan has been doing this for 30 odd years without ruining the Yen or the Japanese economy (I mean it's constantly talked about being in a bad state and just about to fall over, but it hasn't really fallen over, or at least no more or less so than other places).

Over the long term you need to increase money supply to account for a growing population and economy, and between this and a "normal" level of inflation any increases made in the money supply as interventions in the economy are effectively reduced over time. Today we might need - a made up figure of £1tn at a given speed of circulation to manage the UK's economic transactions, but in 10-20 years time when the population has increased by say 25% we need £1.25tn at the same speed of circulation. If today we "print" £0.25tn to get us out of a hole, and it never gets repaid or destroyed, then in 10-20 years time, the increase in money supply will no longer represent an oversupply of money.

Long term any inflationary problems caused by QE are reduced or eradicated by the passage of time. To believe that there is little thought about the long term consequences of this is simply wrong.


Now personally I'd rather inject money into the economy through keynesian measures, but this would be funded in the same way - borrowing money and repaying it later. I'd want to sort out the tax system as well but when the private sector's chips are down, borrowing to invest and repay later is the way to react quickly, and with a working tax system you would still have recessions that need to be managed through borrowing and investing.


One of many issues I have with BTC specifically and crypto generally as a currency. If you think BTC could be a currency for the developing world, what happens when the population increases 50% but the amount of currency can't be increased, and the amount of transactions and therefore speed of circulation of currency is fixed?

I can see you have many issues with crypto so not really worth debating it, you may call my analysis simplistic, but as there's no argument that will change your option, why bother? I also disagree very strongly with your view of quantitive easing and think it's a terrible idea to keep printing money. I'll leave it there and acknowledge your views respectfully, but I have no doubt that some time in the future Bitcoin (or one of its rivals) will have take over fiat currency.

I'll see you again here in 10 years and we'll see who's right eh?

 

[Dragon 24]

Institutions putting money into it doesn't magically stop it being a speculation bubble.

BigTom has dealt with the rest of your post.

See above.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I can see you have many issues with crypto so not really worth debating it, you may call my analysis simplistic, but as there's no argument that will change your option, why bother? I also disagree very strongly with your view of quantitive easing and think it's a terrible idea to keep printing money. I'll leave it there and acknowledge your views respectfully, but I have no doubt that some time in the future Bitcoin (or one of its rivals) will have take over fiat currency.

I'll see you again here in 10 years and we'll see who's right eh?

I'm not sure you really understand what QE is, though. Or what money is for that matter. We have avoided the mistakes that caused the Great Depression partly through QE. At root, it's really very simple. If private companies or individuals won't borrow, governments have to. Otherwise the money supply is destroyed and the economy seizes up. That's what happened after 1929.

Like BigTom, I would have used that money very differently, not just given it to banks to pump up asset prices once more, but the principle behind QE itself is sound enough.

I'll ask you a simple question:

Can you explain in one short paragraph what the problem is with fiat money that something like bitcoin solves?

 

[David Clapson]

Oh look, here's Chia, yet another cryptocurrency. Launched in March. Loads of people are piling in. It claims to be green. Whereas Bitcoin uses 0.53% of the world's electricity supply, Chia just gobbles up disks. Two weeks ago it was using 3 million Terabytes, now it's using 12 million. There are so many read-writes that some of the disks die. So of course there's a sudden shortage of big SSDs, which is hitting production of consoles etc. Will crypto economics be hurt by having so many different ones? I'm not an economist, but I do hope so. Chia really ought to help everyone see that there's fuck all behind the curtain.

New cryptocurrency Chia blamed for hard drive shortages

Speculators buy up vital components as demand surges for rival to bitcoin that requires huge storage space

www.theguardian.com

Bitcoin rival Chia 'destroyed' hard disc supply chains, says its boss

Chia, a cryptocurrency intended to be a green alternative to bitcoin, has led to hard disc shortages – much to the surprise of Gene Hoffman, the president of Chia Network

www.newscientist.com

 

[littlebabyjesus]

New Scientist has not covered itself in glory wrt cryptocurrencies. A few years ago it was running articles that stopped short of actively endorsing them but were effusive about blockchains in general. So here, again, it doesn't actually condemn them, using pretty weasel words about weighing the costs against the benefits without actually saying what the benefits of all this nonsense might actually be. New Scientist has a decent record of campaigning positions wrt climate change. Sadly it hasn't done the same wrt cryptobullshit.

'proof of space' has exactly the same problems as proof of work. They are both at root 'proof that you are wasting resources on this crap'.

 

[kabbes]

I can see you have many issues with crypto so not really worth debating it, you may call my analysis simplistic, but as there's no argument that will change your option, why bother? I also disagree very strongly with your view of quantitive easing and think it's a terrible idea to keep printing money. I'll leave it there and acknowledge your views respectfully, but I have no doubt that some time in the future Bitcoin (or one of its rivals) will have take over fiat currency.

I'll see you again here in 10 years and we'll see who's right eh?

Not all opinions are equal. Not everything comes down to “views”. It’s clear to me that you have very little understanding of macroeconomics. You just see the complex system in terms of simplistic analogies. You’re also a true believer, in the classic mould of all who get sucked into pyramid schemes, so of course you have a wilful ignorance, a refusal to even begin to engage with the issues. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.

As I say, this doesn’t come down to “views”. You can take each and every granular point and examine it for what it is. There is literally nothing that is claimed to be worthwhile for Bitcoin (and particularly Bitcoin, which is poor even amongst crypto) that stands up to scrutiny. Bitcoin is not and can never be money. At best, it can function as a barter system, which is a massive step backwards.

But it isn’t harmless fun either, as it is on course to be the biggest polluter on the planet within a handful of years. For what?

 

[Dragon 24]

I'm not sure you really understand what QE is, though. Or what money is for that matter. We have avoided the mistakes that caused the Great Depression partly through QE. At root, it's really very simple. If private companies or individuals won't borrow, governments have to. Otherwise the money supply is destroyed and the economy seizes up. That's what happened after 1929.

Like BigTom, I would have used that money very differently, not just given it to banks to pump up asset prices once more, but the principle behind QE itself is sound enough.

I'll ask you a simple question:

Can you explain in one short paragraph what the problem is with fiat money that something like bitcoin solves?

I don’t need a paragraph, just one example: Zimbabwe.
It could never happen here you’ll reply. Really? Keep the printing presses rolling, keep debasing the currency and see what happens.

I notice you try and forward your argument by questioning my knowledge. I’m not questioning what you may or may not know as I have no idea about you. I would appreciate the say curtesy.

 

[Dragon 24]

Not all opinions are equal. Not everything comes down to “views”. It’s clear to me that you have very little understanding of macroeconomics. You just see the complex system in terms of simplistic analogies. You’re also a true believer, in the classic mould of all who get sucked into pyramid schemes, so of course you have a wilful ignorance, a refusal to even begin to engage with the issues. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming.

As I say, this doesn’t come down to “views”. You can take each and every granular point and examine it for what it is. There is literally nothing that is claimed to be worthwhile for Bitcoin (and particularly Bitcoin, which is poor even amongst crypto) that stands up to scrutiny. Bitcoin is not and can never be money. At best, it can function as a barter system, which is a massive step backwards.

But it isn’t harmless fun either, as it is on course to be the biggest polluter on the planet within a handful of years. For what?

It’s clear to me you’ll also forward your argument by questioning my knowledge. Your view on the environmental impact of Bitcoin is the simplistic thing here. And it’s just wrong. I don’t doubt there is an issue with mining and it’s energy usage but it’s just nowhere near the level you and critics of it place it. I saw a very good, accurate, summation the other day on this. I’ll have a look later and share it.
This does seem to be a ‘pile on the Bitcoin supporter’ thread so not sure there’s much point. But if you’re open to actually debate rather than just question knowledge then great, happy to discuss at length.

 

[kabbes]

You — literally you — posted earlier that 61% of Bitcoin mining is not from renewable sources. That’s 61% of the equivalent CO2 produced by the entire nation of the Netherlands. And it’s on an exponentially increasing scale. Even leaving aside the fact that the world can’t afford to divert its renewable energy anyway, how can you justify spending that much CO2 output on this.

 

[Athos]

I don’t need a paragraph, just one example: Zimbabwe.
It could never happen here you’ll reply. Really? Keep the printing presses rolling, keep debasing the currency and see what happens.

I notice you try and forward your argument by questioning my knowledge. I’m not questioning what you may or may not know as I have no idea about you. I would appreciate the say curtesy.

Hyperinflation is effecively where people's lack of faith in the value of money (especially where it has no objective base) causes it to plummet, which then becomes self-perpetuating. Even leaving aside the environmental catastrophe, Bitcoin is susceptible to EXACTLY that phenomenon!

 

[not-bono-ever]

It’s fucking shit innit

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don’t need a paragraph, just one example: Zimbabwe.
It could never happen here you’ll reply. Really? Keep the printing presses rolling, keep debasing the currency and see what happens.

I notice you try and forward your argument by questioning my knowledge. I’m not questioning what you may or may not know as I have no idea about you. I would appreciate the say curtesy.

I question your understanding of key concepts, yes, based on what you've posted thus far. As kabbes says, it's not just a question of people respectfully holding different opinions. These are real-world phenomena that demand explanation, and some explanations don't hold water.

So you've brought up the real-world case of hyperinflation in Zim. But you just throw it out 'ta-da' without explaining what this example illustrates, other than that hyperinflation can happen. You have some work to do to link that example to the QE performed by Japan, the USA, the UK, the eurozone, Sweden, etc. Specifically, do you understand that QE has been done in many cases in order to prevent deflation? Do you understand the effects of deflation on an economy, removing the incentive to circulate money? Do you understand that money's whole purpose is to circulate? And what is one of the key characteristics of bitcoin? Hoarding. Bitcoin is not money.

Now if you want to talk about how we might move away from capitalist economies, that's an interesting discussion. But again, you have work to do to make the case that bitcoin or something like it should be part of that discussion.

 

[BigTom]

I can see you have many issues with crypto so not really worth debating it, you may call my analysis simplistic, but as there's no argument that will change your option, why bother? I also disagree very strongly with your view of quantitive easing and think it's a terrible idea to keep printing money. I'll leave it there and acknowledge your views respectfully, but I have no doubt that some time in the future Bitcoin (or one of its rivals) will have take over fiat currency.

I'll see you again here in 10 years and we'll see who's right eh?

If you want to have a discussion then you need to discuss things. I'm going to throw this right back at you - you are a true believer in crypto and refuse to consider any arguments against it or problems with and, you won't engage with me because you can't face having your views challenged or questioned, and you can't come up with an answer to the problems of crypto that I present.

If you would like to have a discussion, I have asked many crypto enthuisiasts the second question I asked you* and never got an answer. If you truly believe that crypto can replace fiat as a currency to manage a national economy then you should be able to answer this question, and I would really, genuinely, honestly, love to hear an answer to it.

*

One of many issues I have with BTC specifically and crypto generally as a currency. If you think BTC could be a currency for the developing world, what happens when the population increases 50% but the amount of currency can't be increased, and the amount of transactions and therefore speed of circulation of currency is fixed?

As far as QE goes, what would you have done to pay for the furlough schemes during the pandemic? You mentioned Zimbabwe in a future post but Zimbabwe were just printing money, there was never any suggestion of this being loans that would be repaid, it is simply an increase in the money supply and one which was unsustainable. Do you not see any difference between borrowing money and printing money?

10 years is fine by me. I don't suppose Zen BB has any kind of remind function does it?

 

[Dragon 24]

You — literally you — posted earlier that 61% of Bitcoin mining is not from renewable sources. That’s 61% of the equivalent CO2 produced by the entire nation of the Netherlands. And it’s on an exponentially increasing scale. Even leaving aside the fact that the world can’t afford to divert its renewable energy anyway, how can you justify spending that much CO2 output on this.

And what currency doesn't use energy from non renewable source? Yes me, ME, posted that. And at least the crypto space is attempting to do something about it.

Here's a graph of energy usage for you:





You can argue all you like, but it's not going away. Paypal moving towards it, rumours are Apple is moving towards it. US banking system both private investment banks and day to day banks like Wells Fargo... the groundswell is incredible.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Full-on magical thinking.

Bitcoin mining transforms energy into wealth. Solving a useless algorithm creates wealth. The cost of the mining is translated into the price of bitcoin.

No. Doing useful things creates wealth. This is simply a speculation bubble that is pumped full of bullshit such as the above.

 

[Dragon 24]

If you want to have a discussion then you need to discuss things. I'm going to throw this right back at you - you are a true believer in crypto and refuse to consider any arguments against it or problems with and, you won't engage with me because you can't face having your views challenged or questioned, and you can't come up with an answer to the problems of crypto that I present.

If you would like to have a discussion, I have asked many crypto enthuisiasts the second question I asked you* and never got an answer. If you truly believe that crypto can replace fiat as a currency to manage a national economy then you should be able to answer this question, and I would really, genuinely, honestly, love to hear an answer to it.

*


As far as QE goes, what would you have done to pay for the furlough schemes during the pandemic? You mentioned Zimbabwe in a future post but Zimbabwe were just printing money, there was never any suggestion of this being loans that would be repaid, it is simply an increase in the money supply and one which was unsustainable. Do you not see any difference between borrowing money and printing money?

10 years is fine by me. I don't suppose Zen BB has any kind of remind function does it?

My answer to your question would be Bitcoin is not necessarily the crypto that will replace fiat. Personally I think Ethereum has a better chance long term of being a day to day usage currency and Bitcoin being more like gold as a store of value.

 

[kabbes]

And what currency doesn't use energy from non renewable source? Yes me, ME, posted that. And at least the crypto space is attempting to do something about it.

Here's a graph of energy usage for you:

View attachment 270439

View attachment 270440

You can argue all you like, but it's not going away. Paypal moving towards it, rumours are Apple is moving towards it. US banking system both private investment banks and day to day banks like Wells Fargo... the groundswell is incredible.

I don’t know what you think that graph shows but it actually undermines your case

 

[Dragon 24]

Full-on magical thinking.

Bitcoin mining transforms energy into wealth. Solving a useless algorithm creates wealth. The cost of the mining is translated into the price of bitcoin.

No. Doing useful things creates wealth. This is simply a speculation bubble that is pumped full of bullshit such as the above.

Ok, so tell me why it's bullshit then? You can't argue that the legacy backing system uses more energy than bitcoin because it's factually accurate.

 

[strung out]

And what currency doesn't use energy from non renewable source? Yes me, ME, posted that. And at least the crypto space is attempting to do something about it.

Here's a graph of energy usage for you:

View attachment 270439

View attachment 270440

You can argue all you like, but it's not going away. Paypal moving towards it, rumours are Apple is moving towards it. US banking system both private investment banks and day to day banks like Wells Fargo... the groundswell is incredible.

Your graph shows that Bitcoin is insanely energy inefficient. Something like 10 times as much energy burned compared to its cost, compared to a near 1:1 ratio for the normal banking system.

 

[Monkeygrinder's Organ]

Your graph shows that Bitcoin is insanely energy inefficient. Something like 10 times as much energy burned compared to its cost, compared to a near 1:1 ratio for the normal banking system.

'These ones are small. The ones out there are far away. Small. Far away.'

 

[Dragon 24]

I don’t know what you think that graph shows but it actually undermines your case

Again, another reply with no explanation for why.
Y'all are just so tied in to how things are and pushing the same tired arguments against something new - how shocking that some people are looking for a better alternative! If you really think the current situation is a good one (and in this I mean the banking system/governmental policy etc), then there's no argument that's going to gain any traction with you. The very same insistence in a failing system led to the sub-prime crash and the wonderful period we experienced in 2007-2010. Bitcoin may not be the solution, but some form of decentralised finance is and there's some very strong contenders in that space.

 

[Dragon 24]

Your graph shows that Bitcoin is insanely energy inefficient. Something like 10 times as much energy burned compared to its cost, compared to a near 1:1 ratio for the normal banking system.

The graph illustrates energy usage. I've already dealt with the renewable question above and the moves towards correcting it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ok, so tell me why it's bullshit then? You can't argue that the legacy backing system uses more energy than bitcoin because it's factually accurate.

It's bullshit because the thing the computers are doing - solving an ever more difficult sudoku puzzle - is literally useless. The magic comes in with the claim that this useless work creates the value of a bitcoin. The value of a currency like the pound comes, at root, from all the useful work done by all the millions of people who are paid for their work in pounds.

Then inevitably the word 'deflationary' gets chucked in there, which is simply meaningless.

 

[Dragon 24]

Reading back through this thread, it really is an echo chamber of anti-bitcoin proponents. Little point for anyone holding another opinion in posting here.

It should be called the "I hate bitcoin thread" as it would be far more appropriate.

Good luck with it all, and like I said, see you in ten years and then we can debate this again.

(sets calendar reminder for 27.05.2031)

;-)

 

[kabbes]

The graph illustrates energy usage. I've already dealt with the renewable question above and the moves towards correcting it.

It shows that there is no way that Bitcoin can cope with the volume of transactions that exist even in a tiny fraction of the financial sector. If it did, its energy usage would make all other bars on that graph look minute.

 

[Dragon 24]

It's bullshit because the thing the computers are doing - solving an ever more difficult sudoku puzzle - is literally useless. The magic comes in with the claim that this useless work creates the value of a bitcoin. The value of a currency like the pound comes, at root, from all the useful work done by all the millions of people who are paid for their work in pounds.

Then inevitably the word 'deflationary' gets chucked in there, which is simply meaningless.

How can POS be worthless? It really shows how little you know.

 

[kabbes]

Reading back through this thread, it really is an echo chamber of anti-bitcoin proponents. Little point for anyone holding another opinion in posting here.

It should be called the "I hate bitcoin thread" as it would be far more appropriate.

Good luck with it all, and like I said, see you in ten years and then we can debate this again.

(sets calendar reminder for 27.05.2031)

;-)

People were telling us 10 years ago that this was going to be running the world by now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

How can POS be worthless? It really shows how little you know.

I laugh at that, but it's really not funny. All this fucking waste and a bunch of people truly believing that it is not waste. It is entirely circular and self-contained. The term confidence trick could have been coined just for bitcoin.

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

"If you think BTC could be a currency for the developing world, what happens when the population increases 50% but the amount of currency can't be increased, and the amount of transactions and therefore speed of circulation of currency is fixed"

..
There are only 21 million (21,000, 000) bitcoins in existence, (approx 19 million have already been mined).

BUT

These bitcoins are currently divisible to 8 decimal places to units called satoshis (think pounds and pence, only rather than just two decimal places, you have 8). So there are 2.1 quadrillion satoshis (2,100, 000, 000, 000, 000) in existance.

The lightening network allows you to transact in sub-satoshi units = millisatoshis which are worth 1/1000th of a satoshi. So there are 2.1 quintillion milli-satoshis (2, 100, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000)

There is really no reason why you would need any more precision than 2.1 quintillion units of currency.
Even if you did - they can still be subdivided.

This thread is depressing, embarrassing even.

This is the most amazing technology, which is going to revolutionise the C21st, and people are still on about bloody tulips.

Its not about money. You just dont see it yet, but the people who get bitcoin understand that, money is just a by-product, this is about truth and justice, governance and internationalism, energy creation and resource distribution. Bitcoin is borderless, permissionless, neutral, public and censorship resistant. I can sent it to anyone, anywhere in the world in minutes directly, and no one at all can stop me, and that transaction will forever be recorded in a public ledger that anyone can view and that can never be deleted. Dont you see how powerful that is?