Just to put this into perspective:
The average value of a Bitcoin transaction is currently $119 and requires energy worth roughly $100 (the world average price is $0.14 per kWh).
The global energy consumption in 2017 was 22.3 terawatt hours.
If we moved all financial transactions over to Bitcoin, we'd require over 1000 terawatt hours... each day(!) for Bitcoin transactions alone(!).
That doesn't even factor in that Bitcoin's energy consumption will be exponential to the amount of transactions.
Still believe that Bitcoin is the future of financial transactions?
I'm sorry, but no, that's laughable.
Bitcoin and the blockchain are amazing technologies, but they don't scale for what we are currently using them for.
Yes, there are enough clueless people in the market so that you can still make a quick buck (with a bit of luck anyway), but it's just one big bubble waiting to burst - by design.
Does that mean all crypto currencies suck? No, we're working on better alternatives.
Just to be clear: no, I don't have any stake in this whatsoever. I've contributed to several projects in the field, but I actively refuse to consider crypto-currencies in their current state as an alternative to "regular" money.
I've never sold a single coin of anything and won't be doing so for the foreseeable future (a couple of years at least, probably).
Apparently some more clarification is needed here. I don't even mean to bash on Bitcoin. As I've said in this thread and many times before: it's an amazing and successful technology. By all means, go ahead and use it for whatever you like! It's great.
But please, just don't pretend and keep pushing it as the revolution that will be replacing our entire finance system. It just won't.
@fribbledom I read an article that argued that Bitcoin has become a simple investment vehicle based solely on perceived value of it's investors and that it is and always has been useless as a currency partly because it simply can't perform transactions fast enough. The number of actual Bitcoin transactions is microscopic.
Bitcoin has achieved almost none of it's goals, becoming digital gold instead of digital cash. It's slow, expensive to use, it's privacy measures are ineffective, and the value is too variable.
What is has achieved is breaking the ground and that such a system is useful. I think there's a place for cryptocurrency, but none of the current implementations are going to be THE cryptocurrency.
@fribbledom If my intuition is right, that would lead to transaction costs that are even higher than now. What's probably happening is that people have cheaper sources of power than that. Perhaps you're citing some sort of average price.
@fribbledom or maybe you are just wrong. But you are free to do as you please. Many have tried. All have failed. Adding another one will do no harm.
My point being success and failure should be regarded relative to your goals.
I'm certainly not going to transact with other people via BTC. That would be stupid. You could instead use something that's fast and cheap, or you could use something that maintains privacy. Or you could use BTS and just throw money away for no reason.
So if you're looking for payment processing, BTC is a failure.
IMO distributed ledgers are mostly useful for their contracts. BTC has none.
If what you want is a store of value, BTC does a better job than many others. If that's what you want, then by all means.
Personally I'd want my store of wealth to be better tied to my expenses and/or risks, for example an index of stablecoins or something like that. But maybe that doesn't align with your goals or portfolio or whatever.
"The rest is just tech." - exactly, which is why I brought up the analogy to Linux. A lot of these systems are primarily computation platforms, and their success & failure should be judged as such.
"the market has decided it’s bitcoin" - How do you figure? BTC's price is high, but plenty are doing OK enough. This is not zero-sum.
"basket of coins" - I said basket of stablecoins. I'm playing with derivatives that are connected to legacy assets including fiat.
@john @fribbledom a lot of these are computation. But they all rely on their monetary policy first and foremost. You think ppl demand smart contracts or stablecoins over the SOV and NgU tech. They don’t. Here is a wise thing I learned in the 90’s. Fish in the pond where ppl are catching fish. As for now as basket of stablecoins doesn’t exist. Nor does it do any better than just having USD.
I know that some people do care about that, because a number (not all) of those projects are chugging along just fine. You don't have to be the #1 store of wealth in order to be a successful compute platform.
If your goal is to make money, being on the long side of stablecoins is a terrible strategy. I'd hope that's not what people are there for. But my opinion on that isn't super relevant as I'm not actually using crypto to store wealth or make money.
@fribbledom Honestly, a better alternative already exists.
It's called credit.
We've had it for, oh, 100 years or so, and it already represents a significant market share of all cash value in the world. Trade in your dirty old cash and crypto for something stable and convenient, with plenty of protections for you and your family and friends. It even has cards accepted at nearly every kiosk! ;)
I kid, but seriously, crypto is nothing new. It's just Monopoly money credit.
I absolutely agree and I don't consider it a failure at all. On the contrary, it's a huge success, without a doubt. But its design is incredibly flawed for its current use-case, and eventually it'll just be remembered as the first iteration of crypto currencies.
My only recent use of BC is via robinhood where I can make a few bucks each day buying/selling due to its volatility.
Pretty sure they said we'd all be dead by 2019 if we still used BTC.
Their talking points… ugh.
#CambridgeUniversity debunked the bitcoin-is-a killer trope. They weren't even trying to, spun the result so it'd sound as bad as possible. Was yawn.
Yes, #bitcoin is designed to use a tiny fraction of the energy found on the planet.
Understandably (though regrettably) most bitcoin enthusiasts don't know the full details/spectrum of its implications. So such a report is obtusely (largely) false. This is because this requires extensive technical knowledge on bitcoin and crypto in general.
Thank goodness we don't all bank on the the words of strangers.
@fribbledom I believe Bitcoin is *part* of the future of financial transactions, but just like there are multiple ways to make financial transactions today (cash, debit cards, credit cards, gift cards, checks, wire transfers, etc), the cases where Bitcoin is a poor fit can be satisfied by cooperating systems.
If you can describe something that's clearly an improvement to Bitcoin, and which is technically feasible, I don't know why Bitcoin wouldn't adopt it, obviating the need for alternatives.
@fribbledom Yeah I don't get why BTC is still considered the gold standard. It's the slowest cryptocurrency out there. There are so many that are better in every way ... and more environmentally friendly.
I guess it's a lack of consensus, since there are so many options out there now. Do you know the differences between Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Tether, ...?
@fribbledom people need to stop with this "Bitcoin can't scale FUD"
lightning exists today and it works great, with protocol upgrades coming soon to make it even better and *way* more scalable as-is
there's also no reason that the zk-rollups that *already work on ethereum* can't work on bitcoin once we fork in more expressive primitives to bitcoin's script system to verity snark proofs
people love to suck off shitcoins for being "way more scalable than bitcoin" without actually understanding the sacrifices they give to make that happen and then cite energy usage as why bitcoin can't work
also a point on this:
>Bitcoin's energy consumption will be exponential to the amount of transactions.
this is also just untrue, at worst it's linear
and with L2 protocols we can fit essentially unbounded tx volume into the same block space
@fribbledom points I want to emphasize are:
* we know how to make it scale as far as we need to, it's a matter of ensuring it's secure and that the technology is something you can actually trust with money
* nobody thinks that proof of work is perfectly fine so we want to take advantage of it best we can now that it exists
* hashrate does not directly translate into carbon emissions, miners have the freedom to move wherever power is cheapest and the cheapest power availability is in areas with abundant renewables anyways, and hashrate will not grow without bound into the future
@fribbledom one thing that's amusing to me is taht these cultists would take this as evidence that you're biased because you're a "nocoiner".
While they use the very software that I (very partly) helped to build. Amusing indeed.
Also, I'm obviously biased 😄
@fribbledom I feel you. I made a few contributions to Ethereum and I hold...like...1 ETH. I have that because a friend gave me 0.1 BTC when I told him I'd never actually transacted a Bitcoin. I find the technology very interesting but I'm not convinced on the Great Financial Revolution. Similar systems, one day, maybe? Maybe. But not the current ones as we know them.
@fribbledom that's what I'm telling to every of my newly self discovered finance genius friends over and over again for years. They just don't get it.
@fribbledom I'm not sure why you're saying it doesn't scale.
I'm currently using them for swapping money and it's been working fine so far.
@roadriverrail The scale is all the people on the blockchain atm. It's already working at scale, and it could get bigger without technological worry.
@malin I'm aware of how to describe scale (and thus also why "it works for me" is irrelevant in a scale convo). The scale of blockchain use is miniscule compared to the actual financial system, and it will have issues operating at that scale.
Allow me to rephrase:
- It's currently working at a large scale. I have personally verified the scale and the workingness many times.
Perhaps in the future it'll suffer problems, but I'm not sure what problems people are talking about - there's no detail.
@malin It's such common knowledge it has its own Wikipedia page; no need to burn space rehashing it.
@fribbledom I honestly love the tech, it has a long way to go though. We need to focus on figuring out the most efficient way to handle these transactions without compromising the security.
In 20 years this might be in many systems, but it scales worse than this platform!
@fribbledom I don’t think the tech is good or redeemable in its current form. Blockchain is a really bad name for consensus algorithms on top of a merkle *tree*. Proof of Work is about the worst possible consensus algorithm you could possibly imagine, and as implemented is a scary distributed preimage attack on hash algorithms. I’m personally tired of all the “Bitcoin is bad but blockchain is redeemable” narratives. Blockchain is bad and we need to stop throwing good money at it.
@fribbledom while the idea behind bitcoin seems nice, it is still a problem for the environment, like all technologies whose primary goal is to somehow generate money. Bitcoin doesn't really solve any problem that couldn't be solved otherwise and it does it in a way that is so much unsustainable that it borders on suicide to keep using it.
Server run by the main developers of the project It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!