Um (shout out to Amen!) because I was originally responding to this: There's also agreeing with the literal words mentioned vs the intention behind the overall message. I can agree with certain words, while disagreeing with the intention behind the message. If you want to nitpick, maybe "disagree with pretty much all of this" could have been "disagree with much of this" or something along those lines. *shrug* I think it is convenient that "Bitcoin cannot be changed because if you change it, it is not Bitcoin." (I know what you mean, but when simplified like that, it does sound kinda funny) I was throwing out comparisons to laws of physics, so compared to that, it is definitely not impossible for Bitcoin to change. I can convince everyone on Earth that we should have 10x more gold and that gravity should function differently. Doesn't matter, we can't change those things. But if I convinced everyone on Earth to change Bitcoin (or even a majority of a subset), then sure I could change Bitcoin's scarcity relatively easily in comparison (or just use something else). Is that likely? In absolute terms, probably not, but I can't predict the future of human behavior. And we have lots of irrational people (including irrational heads of state) with nukes, so I wouldn't put any limits on how much human behaviors can change. An 16 character password with upper and lower case letters probably takes like 2 billion years to brute force hack (i.e., "NO ONE CAN HACK IT!"), but fortunately for hackers, there are plenty of other ways to hack a password beside brute force computation (and they're usually fairly easy regardless of number of characters/case/numbers/special characters/etc). Ask LastPass about how these things work. (if my timestamp share didn't work, go to around 43:00) Bruce goes over the gist of what I'm trying to say (and does it better than me...because of course he does). FWIW, the whole video is a great watch, and he's relatively (by his standards) kind about Bitcoin/crypto/blockchain (less so in recent times). Alright, I'm going to be a bit snippy because you're literally saying I don't know what I'm talking about on these specific topics (we're not talking economics/etc anymore), even though I'm literally speaking on something I've built a career on for the last 15-20 years. Not to mention that I learned these ideas from experts in this field (see video above). I *know* the information that you *believe* is correct, but I'm *telling* you that the real world is more complex than fun mathematical properties you can draw on a whiteboard (i.e., how do you get that math implemented in code, packaged with other dependencies, deployed on an OS, running on hardware that is networked together?). You cannot just "trust math" or have "code be law," and the people who strongly promote these ideas...probably have no idea how these things really work. There's a reason that software engineers would be terrified of a world where we did online/computer voting (and we prefer the "lowest" tech variant possible). You asked for flaws in your claims/Bitcoin (or that's how I understood it), and I provided some examples. I don't think any particular timestamp is better than any other, especially if we leave it open-ended. I'm not trying to dispute anything specific. As I've noted, I think several parts of Bitcoin are flawed, so I don't have any preference for one topic vs another. The video titles describe what they're about, so just pick whatever you want to look into. Generally speaking, the people in these videos don't go too far off topic, and I think some have chapters, so feel free to use those. And of course I'm not expecting a timely response (or any response). Cause yeah...that's a lot (and I have even more if that's not enough). I watched hours and hours of videos from Lyn, Saylor, Cross, "Progressive Bitcoin dude", etc., and I figured I'd share some videos from the "other" side for you or others. That's all. Fair enough, though you seemed to be saying you have similar problems with other social sciences/Liberal Arts. Did I misunderstand that? I obviously don't have the same opinion of economists as you, but I can kinda understand it. Less so if it applies to this larger umbrella of social sciences/Liberal Arts. Nuh-uh, you! I use that lighten the mood some, though ultimately I do believe that we both have some ideology that ultimately is guiding us to different conclusions despite the same set of information (which does not surprise me).
I do think this is the most logical argument presented in this entire thread. Perhaps even the entire BBS.
0:39 Facts behind Bitcoin mining energy consumption 1:26 How Bitcoin mining impacts the electrical grid and renewables 4:38 Agreement between utility companies and miners to manage energy levels 5:45 Some utility companies are running their own Bitcoin mining machines to use otherwise wasted energy 7:10 Factsheet on how much energy is wasted on electricity creation and transmission 8:18 Misleading reports on Bitcoin mining - more transactions does not mean higher energy use 10:09 Bitcoin mining critics will never be happy - is it worth it?
https://www.canarymedia.com/podcasts/catalyst-with-shayle-kann/the-great-bitcoin-energy-debate I think this debunks some of the hypothetical claims of Bitcoin mining by looking at what's actually going on (especially in Texas). Again no timestamps as the whole thing is fairly valuable IMO, though the write up gives a useful preview. The guest also debated a Texas Bitcoin energy guy a while back and "won" (albeit not a lot of votes) It's not as recent so using older data, but if you prefer this kind of talk (with both sides), it might be a good listen.
30 seconds in and they've compared BTC to smoking/cancer and called it a "power sucking vampire". LOL Edit: OK I listened to it all and I regret it. Nothing new discovered or discussed. The more people use power the more power costs? The more power is used the more pollution is caused? No ****, Sherlock. Also, the guest basically approached the question with the presumption that Bitcoin usage is a pure evil/net negative. That basically means their conclusions will be predetermined. Again, if you do not value what bitcoin does, you will think it's wasteful. This podcast was just a reiteration of that.
Something that is rarely discussed when it comes to Bitcoin mining is the capitulation of miners. While there are large portions of Bitcoin miners out there that use coal, it is often then the most expensive. There are rumors speculating many of these miners are about to face capitulation due to the low price of Bitcoin. I expect many of these miners will be the ones who are on the priciest of energy and these miners will then be sold off to the most profitable mining operations.
I think compared to the "BTC mining is a battery" analogy commonly presented by Bitcoiners, this analogy seems much closer to reality. Also makes sense when presented with all the information. IIRC, he used a similar line in the debate, which must have been fairly convincing considering how things went. While they don't discuss this specifically (as it is somewhat speculative and they focused on actual data), I think they talk around related topics (e.g., miners being sensitive to energy prices...or not according to the data they gathered). Also they talk about how most miners (at least in Texas) are just going with contracts with retail energy providers. Similar to residents I guess, and it's not like I'm specifying the type of energy I want. They're agreeing to certain rates, and it's up to ERCOT/the market to figure out the energy mix to provide (vs hey this miner is using 100% coal!). In the case of miners, if overall usage gets too high (and rates go up), they can also "sell energy" back for extra revenue. Seems like a pretty good deal for them, and IMO not a great deal for the rest of us (given the increased overall usage/costs caused by the mining). I think some of the mining in other regions might face problems (like the NY region), though I'm guessing Texas will likely always be the best for BTC mining...at least in US.
Didn't see the edit originally. I actually don't disagree with this, but apparently it's not obvious how this works given the arguments from some Bitcoiners (i.e., mining has a negligible if not positive impact on the grid, co2 emissions, etc.) You're actually repeating what the Bitcoiner in the debate said almost exactly. But as the host said, the point is to figure out this grid impact stuff first, then decide if the pros outweigh the cons. The latter is outside the scope of this type of analysis and discussion. Of course if you really value Bitcoin, then even if mining causes rolling blackouts, perhaps it's worth it still. Not that I'd argue that though.
I haven't listened to the spotify debate (no 2x), but that first podcast wrecks any semblance of how "sustainable and green" BTC can be. Kinda makes the vid referenced a greenwashed gaslight...from flared gas maybe? From 20:00 on, they go through the points the "btc waste energy" vid makes... It's really up to the Green bitcoiners to respond thoroughly and consistently rather than repeating half-truths spawned 5-10 years ago. That guest also co-wrote this NYT article: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/09/business/bitcoin-mining-electricity-pollution.html
pssh, y'all thought there wasn't any real life use cases for bitcoin. https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-gaza-conflict-spurs-bitcoin-donations-to-hamas-11622633400 Israel-Gaza Conflict Spurs Bitcoin Donations to Hamas https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-ea...ael-attack-raised-millions-in-crypto-b9134b7a guess Hamas studied what is money. what's wrong with it. and boom. ok boom is the wrong choice of words.
When Bitcoiners say "Bitcoin is for your enemies too", what did you think they meant??? Thank god the good ol $USD has never been used by Hamas or any other illegal or evil entity.
I'm not sure "hey people send fiat money to bad people too" is necessarily all that convincing of an argument, especially since those typically seem like bugs in the system (which typically involves a non-trivial amount of effort and risk). Sending money to bad people with Bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) seems more like a feature than a bug though (i.e., "censorship resistance"). In practice, I think you find even this feature has bugs (e.g., Canadian truckers scenario), so even if you think it is a good thing to have censorship resistance (I don't), I'm not sure Bitcoin/cryptocurrency necessarily provides it. "but it is stupid to do crime on a public ledger!" - yeah, but if the criminal's wallet is in North Korea, Russia, Iran, etc., not sure it really matters if everyone knows who did it. There's a reason Ransomware uses it quite a bit (and possibly wouldn't exist without it). To paraphrase Nicholas Weaver, Bitcoin/crypto sucks for this use case, but it is the only game in town.
