Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bitcoin is still early

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • BTC does consume a lot of energy, but it gets its value from that -- it's essentially digital energy. POW (as noted by jacoavlu) is what secures the network. Also, BTC uses a lot of stranded energy, wasted energy, and is driving the development of low-cost, green energy. Approximately 50% of energy being consumed by BTC is coming from renewables -- unlike all the hydrocarbons we are addicted to that fly us across the country, drive us to work, or are used to generate electricity to charge our Teslas.

    Comment


    • Any opinions on LTC? It’s BTC’s little brother. Quicker, less energy, etc.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by orthodds View Post
        I didnt mean to completely disappear, but I started making comments while killing time in an airport lounge. Flying during the Holidays was kind of crazy. I just got home and settled in. Its interesting to read throught the new comments.

        I think BTC is basically a collectible (Beanie Baby type deal) or possibly a store of value like digital gold (low chance). I know with QE and recent worldwide disruptions that a decentralized monetary system probably looks more attractive, but I'm not sold on it as a new monetary system.

        My guess is if there is some day a decentralized, digital monetary system it won't be BTC unless the bitcoin network can operate much more efficiently (I mean use a lot less electricity). Maybe that will happen. Do you BTC experts see a consensus to go to proof of stake or some other method to address the electical consumption issue? The amount of electricity the bitcoin network uses is kind of ridiculous.
        Congratulations! you managed to hit the same old tired FUD that people have been rehashing for ages now, including:

        -Comparing it to Beanie Babies (lol)
        -Energy FUD

        I won't even comment on the first one. The energy FUD keeps getting spewed by nocoiners and people that don't take the time to do research. When you say BTC is not energy efficient, what are you comparing it to? You say that it uses a lot of energy, what are you comparing it to? Everything is relative. A 20 year old flashlight uses a lot of energy when compared to a new LED flashlight but at the same time it uses less energy than my microwave, which uses less energy than my lawnmower, which uses less energy than a car, which uses less energy than a plane. Everything is relative. So saying BTC uses A LOT of energy is kind of useless as a statement. Let's look at gold. If we remove all industrial uses of gold and simply focus on the proportion of gold that is used as a store of value, the energy used to mine, process and then store gold in the world is currently much higher than the energy used by the bitcoin network. So if we were to replace the entire gold market with BTC as a store of value, we would actually be saving a lot of energy as a civilization. So thank you for inadvertently making a bullish point that BTC would be a more energy efficient and green store of value than gold. If we look at traditional financial markets, the energy consumption is even higher. Replacing everything with BTC would save us a lot of energy

        As other stated above, this minimal energy use (compared to gold or the current financial system) is used to secure the network and make it nearly impossible for someone to alter the blockchain. BTC mining is also moving towards green energy and wasted forms of energy such as flared gas. One of the biggest criticisms of BTC up until last year was that China controlled 50% of the hash rate and most of that was powered using coal. Well guess what? China banned all BTC miners last year so all the hash power moved to other countries where we don't use coal as a source of energy.

        So thank you for rehashing the same tired FUD stories and please do some research next time.
        Last edited by nycEMMD; 01-07-2022, 05:43 AM.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by xraygoggles View Post

          If you had waited a few more weeks (or months), you could prolly buy 1.5-2x more BTC than what you bought rn...
          Who says I won't?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by orthodds View Post
            I didnt mean to completely disappear, but I started making comments while killing time in an airport lounge. Flying during the Holidays was kind of crazy. I just got home and settled in. Its interesting to read throught the new comments.

            I think BTC is basically a collectible (Beanie Baby type deal) or possibly a store of value like digital gold (low chance). I know with QE and recent worldwide disruptions that a decentralized monetary system probably looks more attractive, but I'm not sold on it as a new monetary system.

            My guess is if there is some day a decentralized, digital monetary system it won't be BTC unless the bitcoin network can operate much more efficiently (I mean use a lot less electricity). Maybe that will happen. Do you BTC experts see a consensus to go to proof of stake or some other method to address the electical consumption issue? The amount of electricity the bitcoin network uses is kind of ridiculous.
            The amount of electricity BTC uses is actually not that much if you consider all of the reasons it consumes electricity. Did you know electric clothes dryers consume more electricity than the BTC network? Why no outrage over clothes dryers? We could all just go back to hanging our clothes on a line.

            The electricity consumed is more than worthwhile if you perceive that BTC has value. If you perceive it as having zero value, then any energy it uses is a waste. To stabilize the entire global financial system, it uses a fraction of the energy it is worth. And it is a myth that it will consume significantly more energy as usage increases. That is flat out untrue.

            As for Proof of Stake...that is the same as the financial system we have right now. It is literally the problem BTC is trying to fix. So no, I don't have any belief that POS is an improvement.

            And yes, if you perceive BTC as a collectible like Beanie Babies, then pretty much any energy it uses is too much in your mind. Obviously, I do not believe it to be a "collectible".

            Comment


            • Originally posted by ShredtheGnar View Post
              Any opinions on LTC? It’s BTC’s little brother. Quicker, less energy, etc.
              Yes. But I would get kicked off the forum for vulgar language if I shared my opinions on LTC.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by ShredtheGnar View Post
                Any opinions on LTC? It’s BTC’s little brother. Quicker, less energy, etc.
                Creator sold his entire share many years ago. That's all the DD I need

                Comment


                • Originally posted by nycEMMD View Post

                  Congratulations! you managed to hit the same old tired FUD that people have been rehashing for ages now, including:

                  -Comparing it to Beanie Babies (lol)
                  -Energy FUD

                  I won't even comment on the first one. The energy FUD keeps getting spewed by nocoiners and people that don't take the time to do research. When you say BTC is not energy efficient, what are you comparing it to? You say that it uses a lot of energy, what are you comparing it to? Everything is relative. A 20 year old flashlight uses a lot of energy when compared to a new LED flashlight but at the same time it uses less energy than my microwave, which uses less energy than my lawnmower, which uses less energy than a car, which uses less energy than a plane. Everything is relative. So saying BTC uses A LOT of energy is kind of useless as a statement. Let's look at gold. If we remove all industrial uses of gold and simply focus on the proportion of gold that is used as a store of value, the energy used to mine, process and then store gold in the world is currently much higher than the energy used by the bitcoin network. So if we were to replace the entire gold market with BTC as a store of value, we would actually be saving a lot of energy as a civilization. So thank you for inadvertently making a bullish point that BTC would be a more energy efficient and green store of value than gold. If we look at traditional financial markets, the energy consumption is even higher. Replacing everything with BTC would save us a lot of energy

                  As other stated above, this minimal energy use (compared to gold or the current financial system) is used to secure the network and make it nearly impossible for someone to alter the blockchain. BTC mining is also moving towards green energy and wasted forms of energy such as flared gas. One of the biggest criticisms of BTC up until last year was that China controlled 50% of the hash rate and most of that was powered using coal. Well guess what? China banned all BTC miners last year so all the hash power moved to other countries where we don't use coal as a source of energy.

                  So thank you for rehashing the same tired FUD stories and please do some research next time.
                  I don't really follow the bitcoin narrative closely, but the ESG issue is still a looming gorilla in the room, at least for broader institutional adoption. this was discussed in the podcast, What Bitcoin Did, hosted by Peter McCormack (Bitcoin maxi), interviewing Kevin O'Leary on 9/16/2021. nycEMMD, i think you're right to point out one technologies energy consumption to others.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tomato14 View Post

                    I don't really follow the bitcoin narrative closely, but the ESG issue is still a looming gorilla in the room, at least for broader institutional adoption. this was discussed in the podcast, What Bitcoin Did, hosted by Peter McCormack (Bitcoin maxi), interviewing Kevin O'Leary on 9/16/2021. nycEMMD, i think you're right to point out one technologies energy consumption to others.
                    personally I think its a debate not to even be entertained bc to even engage is to give the counter argument legitimacy which I think it has none, as does most of the "ESG" narrative

                    energy consumption and production is and has always has been intimately associated with human flourishing, when those things go up human lives improve

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tomato14 View Post

                      I don't really follow the bitcoin narrative closely, but the ESG issue is still a looming gorilla in the room, at least for broader institutional adoption. this was discussed in the podcast, What Bitcoin Did, hosted by Peter McCormack (Bitcoin maxi), interviewing Kevin O'Leary on 9/16/2021. nycEMMD, i think you're right to point out one technologies energy consumption to others.
                      This was actually a very good interview IMO. O'Leary was very frank about what happens behind the scenes and it was truly eye opening how publicly traded companies can be affected by a small faction of investors/people.

                      But the Energy questions have been answered regarding the E portion of the ESG narrative. There is great data which can be presented to publicly traded companies. It is easy to access. But the education clearly needs to persist to fully squash this invalid argument. The S(Social) and G(Governance) portion of the ESG narrative should be lauded by all in regards to BTC. It is far more S and G friendly than any other form of currency that has ever existed. For some reason people tend to ignore the S and G part of the ESG.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by nycEMMD View Post

                        Congratulations! you managed to hit the same old tired FUD that people have been rehashing for ages now, including:

                        -Comparing it to Beanie Babies (lol)
                        -Energy FUD

                        I won't even comment on the first one. The energy FUD keeps getting spewed by nocoiners and people that don't take the time to do research. When you say BTC is not energy efficient, what are you comparing it to? You say that it uses a lot of energy, what are you comparing it to? Everything is relative. A 20 year old flashlight uses a lot of energy when compared to a new LED flashlight but at the same time it uses less energy than my microwave, which uses less energy than my lawnmower, which uses less energy than a car, which uses less energy than a plane. Everything is relative. So saying BTC uses A LOT of energy is kind of useless as a statement. Let's look at gold. If we remove all industrial uses of gold and simply focus on the proportion of gold that is used as a store of value, the energy used to mine, process and then store gold in the world is currently much higher than the energy used by the bitcoin network. So if we were to replace the entire gold market with BTC as a store of value, we would actually be saving a lot of energy as a civilization. So thank you for inadvertently making a bullish point that BTC would be a more energy efficient and green store of value than gold. If we look at traditional financial markets, the energy consumption is even higher. Replacing everything with BTC would save us a lot of energy

                        As other stated above, this minimal energy use (compared to gold or the current financial system) is used to secure the network and make it nearly impossible for someone to alter the blockchain. BTC mining is also moving towards green energy and wasted forms of energy such as flared gas. One of the biggest criticisms of BTC up until last year was that China controlled 50% of the hash rate and most of that was powered using coal. Well guess what? China banned all BTC miners last year so all the hash power moved to other countries where we don't use coal as a source of energy.

                        So thank you for rehashing the same tired FUD stories and please do some research next time.
                        I’m sorry I touched a nerve there. Financial topics aren’t usually taken personally unless there is a strong personal devotion involved which usually doesn’t lend itself to sound investment decisions.

                        BTC clearly trades more like a beanie baby or a meme stock than a traditional investment. Of course BTC is more interesting and a different animal than a beanie. I’m only talking about it from an investment perspective.

                        Replacing the entire gold market? Nonsensical argument there since it’s already been mined and is sitting in vaults. It’s largely traded and owned only in digital form as well. When you buy GLD they don’t go digging for gold and then deliver it to you so you can store it in your garage. We are talking about ongoing energy use. The point is to compare it to other forms of cryptocurrency and data transfer in terms of energy use. Ethereum made a different choice but maybe that’s because it has a different purpose?

                        The point made about POS trending toward centralization and defeating the purpose of a decentralized monetary system makes sense.

                        Most BTC is owned for one reason only: speculative hopes of making lots of money. Some own it for specific reasons like they believe the US monetary/financial system will completely break down and we will need a decentralized alternative. In that case you have to believe that alternative system will actually be needed and you also have to believe an alternative that’s better than BTC won’t appear on the scene. Many, many people (myself included) dont buy either of these scenarios.

                        I watched the Michael Saylor interview with Tucker Carlson because it was suggested he makes a compelling case for BTC. I thought it was an unbelievably weak argument. It’s not an exaggeration to say his entire argument was that you should invest in BTC because it rises in value much faster than other investments. A more compelling argument would be why BTC is not only a cool technology, but exactly why it is worth 50k or 100k or whatever and why it is better than alternatives to other cryptos. He just kept saying inflation is bad so buy something (BTC) that goes up faster than any type of inflation. He owns 100s of millions worth of BTC and he doesn’t have a compelling thesis for owning it other than in the recent past it’s value has gone up a lot (not as much now as in Nov when he did the interview but anyway…)

                        Comment


                        • BTC lost 40% in less than sixty days. This is supposed to be a form of currency?

                          My only question is whether this is better or worse than the Turkish lira over the same time frame. You know, the lira... that bastion of value and stability.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by NapoleanDynamite View Post

                            Who says I won't?
                            Fair. I only keep a small percentage of crypto (yes crypto, not bitcoin) in cold storage for Hodl.

                            Trade 80% of crypto portfolio, been out since Dec, waiting for dump, then get back in eventually.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by FIREshrink View Post
                              BTC lost 40% in less than sixty days. This is supposed to be a form of currency?

                              My only question is whether this is better or worse than the Turkish lira over the same time frame. You know, the lira... that bastion of value and stability.
                              just pointing out btc closed around $15.5k when this thread started about 14 months ago

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by orthodds View Post
                                Replacing the entire gold market? Nonsensical argument there since it’s already been mined and is sitting in vaults. It’s largely traded and owned only in digital form as well. When you buy GLD they don’t go digging for gold and then deliver it to you so you can store it in your garage. We are talking about ongoing energy use. The point is to compare it to other forms of cryptocurrency and data transfer in terms of energy use. Ethereum made a different choice but maybe that’s because it has a different purpose?
                                It may be able to take some market share in the future, if/when it ever stabilizes. Or it may not.

                                Originally posted by orthodds View Post
                                Most BTC is owned for one reason only: speculative hopes of making lots of money. Some own it for specific reasons like they believe the US monetary/financial system will completely break down and we will need a decentralized alternative. In that case you have to believe that alternative system will actually be needed and you also have to believe an alternative that’s better than BTC won’t appear on the scene. Many, many people (myself included) dont buy either of these scenarios.
                                Yup, 99.9999999% of people (including everyone on this forum) owns BTC or any crypto hoping for number go up. Nothing wrong with that - in fact I would respect someone much more if they said that, instead of espousing circuitous reasoning that disingenuously commingles economic policy with a specific type of fantastical libertarian ideology sprinkled with delusions of grandeur.

                                Originally posted by orthodds View Post
                                I watched the Michael Saylor interview with Tucker Carlson because it was suggested he makes a compelling case for BTC. I thought it was an unbelievably weak argument. It’s not an exaggeration to say his entire argument was that you should invest in BTC because it rises in value much faster than other investments. A more compelling argument would be why BTC is not only a cool technology, but exactly why it is worth 50k or 100k or whatever and why it is better than alternatives to other cryptos. He just kept saying inflation is bad so buy something (BTC) that goes up faster than any type of inflation. He owns 100s of millions worth of BTC and he doesn’t have a compelling thesis for owning it other than in the recent past it’s value has gone up a lot (not as much now as in Nov when he did the interview but anyway…)
                                Saylor has somehow convinced his BoD to convert his publicly traded company to a highly leveraged bitcoin storage vehicle. I'm not sure I would listen to anyone who erratically goes all-in on one highly volatile speculation: gotta be some screws loose in his noggin.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X