So for the statement "Bitcoin uses up too much energy", the response was basically "we'll just build nuclear plants, so don't worry about it"? That doesn't seem like a serious response to me. I've seen variations of that argument (e.g., "Video games use a lot of energy," "We should just do a better job with energy production," "What about all the energy the financial sector uses?"), as well as promises about how different crypto workflows/processes (PoS, PoA, etc.) would magically fix things. A lot of mental gymnastics to justify the waste and greed going into these systems. Well maybe some people actually legitimately believe in the tech, but seems most just want to get in early on all of these pyramid schemes (which to be fair, seems to be working out very well for many who invested in NFTs/crypto).
Before you jump in your thesis, stop and understand the big picture. Claiming Bitcoin uses too much energy is a vastly over simplistic tool to find flaws with Bitcoin. When the energy consumption comment comes up, I would like for once a person to ask real questions, for example, what flaws does Bitcoin really have? If energy consumption is the best one to come up, then it sounds like Bitcoin is a really fantastic protocol. (there are other flaws to bitcoin much more serious than energy consumption) My first point I encourage to you to analysis is to acknowledge or disregard the current financial system over the last 100 years. Is it sustainable? If you can't answer this question, that is perfectly fine. If your answer is No, then back up and understand what Bitcoin is really about. My second point is who is the moral authority to say who uses too much energy? I have a lot of issues with those who have massive houses (im not talking about 5k sqft. Im referring to more than you need) and those who drive trucks and SUV's which are not used for commercial purposes. We all use an abundance of energy that we really dont need to consume. Lastly, when was the last time someone complained lighting used too much energy? Or a hurricane? The point being is the amount of energy used is irrelevant. Its the type of energy used that is a concern. If half the network is using renewables, that is pretty impressive.
Bitcoin is inherently deflationary. To get more coins it becomes mathematically more complicated as time goes on. As the currency grows in popularity and you need more of it, where does the supply come from? The carbon footprint shouldn't be overlooked because if the currency is to scale and really enter the mainstream. It should be factored in. I realize one of the attraction to digital currency is if you were an early adopter, you can profit. But I look at it as a barrier for new comers. If it's truly for the masses, it shouldn't matter when you start using a currency. Is bitcoin's goal to be an investment currency or is its goal to be an alternative currency for everyday purchases? Money / cash / paper bills /debit account, by it's very nature is liquid.
Sorry for (possibly) leading this thread (sorta) off-topic. Mods/OP, let me know if that's a problem, and if so, I can delete/edit my posts and redirect my thoughts elsewhere. I see several other flaws with Bitcoin/crypto, but the energy one is usually the easiest to thing to point to as a flaw, relative to other flaws (especially since it usually applies to nearly all of crypto). I agree with what @TimDuncanDonaut posted about some of the other issues with Bitcoin. There are various numbers about how inefficient Bitcoin is relative to more conventional systems (e.g., "the average energy consumption for one single Bitcoin transaction in 2020 was 741 kilowatt-hours. This was significantly more compared to the cumulative 100,000 VISA transactions with only an energy consumption of 149 kilowatt-hours"). I see lots of people dispute these figures and/or make claims about how things could easily be different. Rather than dispute those figures, I'll just say that blockchain, kinda by design, would almost certainly require more energy than a more traditional system. Perhaps traditional systems could see some efficiency gains, but generally speaking, it has the advantage. I see little benefit to the value provided by blockchain for a currency, so the extra energy required to process transactions is a complete waste IMO. In Bitcoin's case, their blockchain system seems the most inefficient (relative to other systems), so it gets relatively more criticism from me, but it is definitely not my only criticism. I see some parts as sustainable and some as likely not sustainable. I think things like the stock market, property values, educational costs, etc., have some issues that need to be worked out for long-term sustainability. The bulk of everyday transactions for most people is fine though, at least IMO. I'm open to different ideas though. I'm not in favor of a decentralized money system, though I am open to digitizing most/all financial transactions (which we're already kinda doing). A decentralized digital currency that was perhaps designed to function more like traditional money systems (without the current flaws of Bitcoin) might be something I'd reconsider, especially if it was relatively efficient (either not using blockchain or using a super efficient form of it). You're right that we all use too much energy. That's kinda the point, which is why I (and others) are so sensitive to new systems that may use tons of energy without providing much value to society. I actually think about ways our society could reduce energy consumption quite a bit (e.g., now that we're mostly all WFH, people should stick to audio only conferences on Zoom/Teams/etc. unless you absolutely need the video). People online are wasting huge amounts of energy discussing which waste of energy is a bigger waste of energy. So I'll try to be energy efficient and say we need to address all of them. I don't know if I or anyone else has the moral authority to make these claims. I don't really care though. It is something we need to address one way or another. You lost me a bit with the lightning and hurricane comparisons, though I think it would be fantastic to capture that "lost" energy if that's what you're saying. As for the type of energy, I think you are right that there are some subtilties that can be missed when generalizing things so much. Nevertheless, I think these systems are increasing overall energy consumption, which IMO is a bad thing (especially since I also don't really value their contributions). It would be great if all the extra energy consumption from these systems came entirely from renewable energy sources, but it would be better to not need that energy at all IMO (and maybe put that renewable energy elsewhere where it is needed).
Hey! Take this crap about crappy bitcoin to the bitcoin/crypto thread! This thread is for crappy NFTs!
Asset types of all times are inflated right now. For 3 decades there was a big move from assets to experiences in people's spending habits. COVID and unlimited money flow have violently reversed that trend. Money that would have poured into experiences (vacations, movies, dates, dining out, etc.) are suddenly pouring into assets (stocks, comic books, sports cards, houses, NFTs, and crypto). Add on top of the fact that there is almost infinite money right now. This violent reversal of trends will slow down and stop eventually as people can go back to "normal" life, so you'll see a short to medium term reduction in asset values across the board...but long term...this technology (NFTs) has legs to make huge changes in how we collect and own digital assets.
I've listened to this talk regarding Bitcoin and I found it really informative. It also touches on the energy consumption issue.
You had me until this. There is an argument every Bitcoin transaction is an NTF. Like every paper dollar has a SN, every bitcoin has a serialized transaction stamp. Unlike the paper dollar, that serialized stamp also includes the hand (wallet) transferred from and to. What Im mostly saying is this NTF craze is a bit out of hand. NTF is inherently a feature of blockchain. An NTF of an NTF is not needed.
Good Post. I enjoy discussing topics like this. I dismiss the energy consumption (as a pollutant) because I believe we as a species are getting much closer to making coal and natural gas as a very small portion of global emissions. Nuclear deserves its own discussion as far as an acceptable clean energy. I bring up hurricanes and lighting because those are nothing more than massive energy storms. To say Bitcoin uses too much energy is not fundamentally a sound critic. Explain why Bitcoin using (too much) energy is a bad thing, otherwise we may as well start complaining the universe uses too much energy. But we all know what the critique is trying to imply; Its energy consumption emissions is too high. If we say that instead, it becomes a discussion of how much clean energy vs pollutants. At that point I will note that appx 50% of Bitcoin network uses clean energy ... and climbing rapidly. One of the costlier parts of energy is the infrastructure, bringing energy to the market. Bringing the market (digital miners) to the (energy) generators drastically reduces energy costs. Take Iceland for instance. Very cold, lots and lots of thermal energy out in the middle of nowhere and costly to bring to market. This is a digital miners heaven. 100% clean energy. Free AC to cool the miners. Build the miners facility right next to the generator and get energy for a fraction of the cost. Now all I need is to find a market for that excess heat generated from the electronics. So now I dont have to pay AC costs and energy is a fraction of the cost and I find a creative way to sell that heat. Im going to make millions, right? I own the mine, so why not mine it? Why not rent out the mine for a premium? If the average American wants to mine, its going to be costly. They will pay 4x the energy cost, the headache of the IT support, cost of the miner (which will quickly depreciate), real estate, cooling, ect. This is the equivalency of buying 1lbs bags of dirt on Amazon and sifting it for gold. Its just not very efficient to mine on coal power when you can rent it cheaper from clean energy (while they make insane margins). There are bigger flaws. If crypto banks (also known as exchanges) become heavily regulated across the globe and control the vast majority of custodianship, then you can start seeing Bitcoin manipulation in various forms. One form is blacklisting. If Osama bin laden has a known address of 1000 bitcoins, its parent address can be blocked from exchanges, thus devaluing any bitcoin that has a derivative from Osama's parent address. It will still have value and banks could even offer you a swap from a tainted bitcoin to a 'clean' bitcoin at a fraction of its original value. Once the government accumulates enough of the blacklisted address, they could then whitelist the address and bring the original bitcoin back to its original value. Bitcoin is headed towards being a store of value. Its not going to be used as everyday currency. At the next halving in the next 3 years, I believe Bitcoin will become less volatile. Look for the SEC to start forcing companies who keep bitcoin on their balance sheet to publicly post their crypto addresses for all to see to prevent market manipulation. You could also see the SEC requiring companies to send their bitcoin into a clearing house for a small time period to hide how much they sold the Bitcoin (to prevent market speculation). In a couple decades, I suspect hash rate to start declining or stagnating. Hash rate is the ultimate determining factor in the value of bitcoin. We could very well see corporations and governments get into mining to maintain the integrity of the network, much like we see cash handouts now to maintain the balance of the economy. I see bitcoin as one of the primary forms as a store of value. Gold and Silver will always be there. And there will be other crypto projects too. With Russia and China hording all the gold, I do not see gold being a strong SOV in the future.
Is this actually true? I did a quick Google and got this (a fairly recent article): I guess that doesn't directly contradict what you said, but the way I read it, it doesn't seem likely. It almost seems like there's little incentive to use clean energy. The guy quoted says his company only uses renewable energy (which I guess we can take his word for), but I'm not sure all Bitcoin folks follow the same model. There's a bit of overlap between what we're discussing here and what we discussed in the other thread (with energy, energy production, and energy infrastructure), so I'll leave most of that discussion for the other thread. I guess that's all fine and good. Admittedly, I'm pretty ignorant on some of these more complex financial topics (somewhat willfully ignorant), but it is just something my brain doesn't have much interest in comprehending. In my eyes, all these various ways of storing value (NFTs, Bitcoin, physical art, gold/silver, property, etc.) aren't really things I think are good for society. I understand the motivation from an individual level, but it seems like society as a whole would benefit more if people kept their value stored in...well...money. Yes, that would subject it to taxes, inflation/deflation, etc., but it is my belief that this is the best thing overall. Trying to store value in these other things makes it harder for us to regulate our financial systems. If it wasn't obvious, I have fairly socialist views on these type of things, and I can understand that a difference in political ideals would most certainly result in a difference in opinion on the value of NFTs/Bitcoin/etc. I'm open to learning more about how ignorant and naïve I am, but yeah, I'm not exactly excited about the amazing prospects this stuff has as a store of value.
It's a collectible and a tradeable asset. Why collect a (literally anything) if I can just look it up online for nothing.
I don't get it either but I learned a long time ago that it's not up to you to shop for your customer. If you want to make money, you capitalize on the demand.
Cool use case for NFTs I just heard...items that are commonly scalped upon release, like sneakers or concert tickets. Write into the smart contract that every time they are resold a cut goes back to the original seller. Of course you could structure this to eliminate any incentive to scalp if you wanted to.
