Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble

[tecate]

Breaking ....

Apple Pay to support bitcoin payments.


******************

Anyone making a one sentence statement claiming bitcoin is centralised is being disingenuous. Bitcoin was designed and conceived as a decentralised network and that's precisely what it is today. If someone wants to talk about the degree of decentralisation, that's fine - but it is and has been decentralised. If anyone wants to participate as a miner, they can do so right now. If anyone wants to simply use the network to store or send value, they can do so - there won't be any centralised third party standing in their way.

 

[WolfeTone]

So it is my opinion that the energy usage is a real concern in the context of it being used as a store of value.

I have to say that the energy use was a red-flag to me for a long while. But here is a conversation between two bitcoin proponents, and from 25mins 30sec on its energy use. Gives pause for thought imo, and touches on elements that tecate referred to.

Bitcoin energy use

 

[DublinHead54]

I have to say that the energy use was a red-flag to me for a long while. But here is a conversation between two bitcoin proponents, and from 25mins 30sec on its energy use. Gives pause for thought imo, and touches on elements that tecate referred to.

Bitcoin energy use

Thanks, I agree it does without solving the problem.

What I do have an issue with is tecates comments that traditional banking uses way more way more energy and thus bitcoins usage is ok. It's a naive stance.

 

[WolfeTone]

Thanks, I agree it does without solving the problem.

What is the problem, exactly? You haven't really outlined it, other than bitcoin uses energy?

The next efficiency issue is the environmental impact, do I want to support a currency that damages the environment more than the Euros in my pocket?

How does bitcoin damage the environment more than the Euros in your pocket?

So it is my opinion that the energy usage is a real concern in the context of it being used as a store of value

You need to elaborate. Using energy is not an issue, it never has been. It is what this planet survives and thrives on. Using energy sources that emit excessive amounts of greenhouse gases that are altering the planets ecosystem is what is of concern.

 

[tecate]

Someone can identify a world power as a potential attack vector where the Bitcoin network is concerned in one breath and in the next, attack the very mechanism that makes it the most robust payment network that has ever existed. Over the course of 12 years, the Bitcoin network has never been hacked. It has facilitated 100s of millions of transactions in that timeframe without one fraudulent transaction.
Mining provides network security. That comes with an energy requirement that is currently at a 70% renewable level and trending towards ever higher levels of renewable, wasted and stranded energy consumption.

 

[DublinHead54]

What is the problem, exactly? You haven't really outlined it, other than bitcoin uses energy?



How does bitcoin damage the environment more than the Euros in your pocket?



You need to elaborate. Using energy is not an issue, it never has been. It is what this planet survives and thrives on. Using energy sources that emit excessive amounts of greenhouse gases that are altering the planets ecosystem is what is of concern.

Why isn't that problem enough? Do you not think the current reliance on fossil fuels is an issue?

The video didn't actual discuss that specific issue with BTC. If the hypothesis presented were to hold true should we not see multiple plans to build BTC mining plants in remote areas to harness green energy? Where is the motivation for the mining pools to be more environmentally friendly.

What I'm really focusing on here is the facts of how the network operates today and that is the concern.

I'm not aware that the EU uses a fraction of the energy to print a euro that costs to mine one BTC. That again is logical given BTC is mined through solving algorithms and euros are printed via keystrokes.

What I can point to is the concrete evidence of financial institutions / governments commiting to becoming carbon neutral.

I find this topic very frustrating to discuss on this forum. As certain individuals like to categorize people either into bitcoin believers or bitcoin detractors. As soon as any criticism of bitcoin is voiced I am put in the detractor column.

I actually find it ironic because if we hadn't had criticism of satoshis implementation in the community then we wouldn't have the bitcoin that we have today.

With that said there are still flaws and risks. Those flaws and risks exist both internally and externally. I've been around the block a few times and the argument often lauded in this forum that bitcoin is better and therefore it should replace currency is just naive in the context of the real world.

The best challenge I often out forward is just asking 'so what?'....for example Bitcoin is decentralised....so what?

I was very pro technology and bitcoin 10 years ago but with a little bit more experience I don't think we always need to turn to technology to solve problems.

There is definitely a generational factor on this topic as well. Somebody earlier was arguing the case against central banks and governments by saying they are stealing money by paying negative rates. However, a lot of people are happy with that because it means their mortgage rates are 3% Vs 15% 30 years ago.

 

[WolfeTone]

Ok, there is a lot to pack in there so bear with me a little.

Why isn't that problem enough? Do you not think the current reliance on fossil fuels is an issue?

Of course it is an issue, as I mentioned it is has been a red-flag with me for a time.

However, I'm also minded that the extent that bitcoin relies on fossils fuels is nothing more than a mere drop in the ocean of the overall global reliance on fossil fuels.

It could be argued, why add to it? But equally then, why allow any innovation, or any new technology, add to demand and consumption of fossil fuels? Why allow so much energy wastage on NASA/Spacex projects that aim to do, what, exactly? Send humans to Mars on some pipe dream? What is wrong with the planet we live on? Oh yeah, its burning up...why? Well, in part because we guzzle up and burn massive amounts of fossil fuels experimenting with sending rockets into space!

We must have a different take on the video I posted? It is quite explicit about how bitcoin, by its very existence can be the driver for innovation for utilizing clean, renewable energy resources in the future.

What I can point to is the concrete evidence of financial institutions / governments commiting to becoming carbon neutral.

I don't think I could think of a worse combination of institutions to lead the way for tackling climate change. Yes, they are critically important, but they are laggers, behind the curve, and fundamentally inefficient.
One of the critical impacts of climate change will be the further impoverishment of the poorest regions of earth through drought, flooding and disease. I don't doubt the decision makers of the biggest financial and corporate institutions of the world empathize with the worlds poor as much as me or you, but I suspect, they occupy the positions they occupy for reasons other than their acute awareness of pending catastrophic environmental issues. That may be changing, but it is a slow-burner.

As for governments, depending at any given time who is charge is hardly a concrete approach to tackling climate change. The USA for instance, it committed to the Paris Accord under Obama, then Trump withdrew, now Biden has brought them back in - I don't know about you, but I'm having an early bet on Donald Trump Jnr making a run for the top job in four years. I haven't a clue of his views on climate change.

I'm not aware that the EU uses a fraction of the energy to print a euro that costs to mine one BTC. That again is logical given BTC is mined through solving algorithms and euros are printed via keystrokes.

This is an interesting point. Bitcoin uses a lot of energy, so in a world with climate change it has a challenge on its hands from the get-go to become more efficient and survive.
It is also said here, many, many times, is has no utility, it is not a medium of exchange, no value etc. A bit of a double-whammy by any measure? Energy inefficient and no utility.
To add to bitcoins woe's, it is supposed to compete with an established centralized, permissioned, infrastructurally sound, minimal energy absorbing keystroke form of money, by way of digital fiat.

Bitcoin should be history by now.

On the other hand.....

....while bitcoin mining uses a lot of energy and much is made of this, its energy usage is a drop in the ocean of total global energy usage. And outside of its energy consumption for mining, its energy usage is extremely limited having no apparent utility.

Fiat currency, however, is brought into existence by mere keystrokes and it does have utility, most certainly. Today, for instance, I drove my petrol car to the service station (polluting the environment on the way), to fill up with more fossil fuels that I can burn at a later point. Fuels that probably came from some far flung country that burned more fossils to extract it out of the ground, refine it, and transport it on shipping vessels that burn more fossil fuels all for my personal convenience....why would so many people do so much damage to the environment for my convenience? Would it have anything to do with me having fiat currency, like the euro?
I would suggest it is exactly for that reason.

Bitcoin miners are like the poor farmer, or labourer, conscious of their limitations, acutely aware of scarcity, needing to economise and innovate, invoking entrepreneurial spirit to survive, compete and improve. This will include utilizing clean and renewable energy.

Fiat Central Bankers on the otherhand, are the archetype fat pigs gorging on the never-ending abundant supply of their own righteous obesity. Aloof to their direct contribution in destroying the environment for the last 50years or more. They are protected by subservient governments and their indoctrinated, pacified populations.

Its just a question of who survives, and who does not.

 

[tecate]

@Wolfie - a good find in that Michael Saylor - Ross Stevens interview. It formed part of Saylor's webinar for firms who are considering the possibility of holding bitcoin on their balance sheets - attracting over 1,000 attendees. Steven's NYDIG currently holds $6 billion worth of bitcoin for institutional clients.

With 70% of miners including renewables in the mix, bitcoin miners are not 'reliant' on fossil fuels. In most cases, they're actually 'reliant' on unwanted wasted power and renewables. In most regions, fossil fuels are simply uncompetitive for bitcoin mining. Exceptions include places like Iran & Venezuela - where between economic mismanagement and sanctions, conditions are such that oil-based energy enters the mix. In normal conditions, bitcoin miners go bankrupt if they can't access cheap renewable energy at a minimum.

Just in case anyone doubts this relentless pursuit of the cheapest possible renewable power, multi-million dollar solar farms have been setup (with more in the planning stage) in places like West Texas. Another project plans to utilise stranded solar on the edge of the Sahara. There are geo-thermal based setups in Iceland and hydro and wind based projects in operation in China, Canada, Upstate New York and Washington state. None of these schemes compete with other energy buyers. With few exceptions, they're miles away from major population centres.

Another startup offers a service to the oil/gas industry - with custom built containers - setup with mining rigs which can be dropped onto a remote oil/gas field ready to go - and run off power derived from wasted flared gas. Power stations are getting in on the act directly - and either partnering with miners or running operations themselves given the volume of energy that's simply wasted at such facilities every day of the week.

Anyone who has ever taken an interest in renewables such as solar and wind knows that a major issue is lack of supply consistency. Guess how bitcoin mining can help to smooth that out? In the process, it's making such renewable projects feasible.

Anyone who suggests that pressing a key is the only energy expended in providing for an entire fiat based monetary system is telling fibs. If the calculations are genuine, the conventional system uses a hell of a lot more energy than bitcoin mining.

In terms of government policy re. carbon neutrality, bitcoin miners have bootstrapped themselves up to 70% renewables globally without any chat with officialdom. Governments are actually the cause of that figure not being higher (Venezuela/Iran). In this overall effort, miners are very much in a position to help in this effort by making renewable projects sustainable (see above) and making excellent use of energy that's otherwise wasted.

And now for consideration of where the real issue lies in terms of global warming and growing inequality. This fiat money experiment in its current form is a basket case. It's geared to benefit/reward government negligence and mismanagement as they just inflate away their screw ups. The Roubini's of this world support a system where fiscally responsible citizens who work hard and save are screwed over - continually relieved of their wealth via stealth (inflation of the things that matter in life). The system is rigged to encourage indebtedness - to induce people to be the ultimate consumers. In this way, they're encouraged to buy all manner of crap they don't actually need and there's the culprit in terms of global warming.

 

[DublinHead54]

Ok, there is a lot to pack in there so bear with me a little.



Of course it is an issue, as I mentioned it is has been a red-flag with me for a time.

However, I'm also minded that the extent that bitcoin relies on fossils fuels is nothing more than a mere drop in the ocean of the overall global reliance on fossil fuels.

It could be argued, why add to it?

So you've a concern but your attitude is it's not important because everyone else uses fossil fuels.

Sorry wolf tone but that is exactly the wrong attitude.

I don't even no where to begin on the premise that bitcoin is also now going to be a catalyst for clean energy in the future.

 

[DublinHead54]

I hate to use the following term but it really astounds me the narrow mindedness of the staunchest Bitcoin proponents on this forum.

It is completely the wrong type of people we want in the community.

The fact that in every response above there is a refusal to accept the world existing without bitcoin can change for the better. Banks, governments or whoever can't change or shouldn't be permitted to change. Yet any criticism of bitcoin is met with 'oh but BTC is changing and will address that'.

The energy consumption and concentration of BTC in China is a great example. The responses thus far have just shown an inability to accept there are issues.

The fact that you can't objectively appreciate that the world is changing not only in response to BTC but to many other factors means you've already lost. You can't solely look at BTC as the only solution.

In fact BTC has evolved itself, the use case for it now has nothing to do with the original purpose.

I'm sure you can rationalise how the big bad banks holding BTC now is actually a good thing under the banner of 'greater adoption'.

 

[WolfeTone]

So you've a concern but your attitude is it's not important because everyone else uses fossil fuels

No not at all, quite the opposite. It's the fake concern of others with regard to use of fossil fuels for bitcoin and not much else.

There is an easy answer to this, governments can ban the use of fossil fuels tomorrow, or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on their use.
Everyone and everything, including bitcoin mining, can move to clean renewable energy sources or die.

 

[DublinHead54]

No not at all, quite the opposite. It's the fake concern of others with regard to use of fossil fuels for bitcoin and not much else.

There is an easy answer to this, governments can ban the use of fossil fuels tomorrow, or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on their use.
Everyone and everything, including bitcoin mining, can move to clean renewable energy sources or die.

So it is a fake concern in regard to BTC? In a topic of BTC we can't raise the issue of energy usage as a concern because everyone else uses fossil fuels?

You are operating in an echo chamber. The Paris climate accords, the climate change marches over the last year's. They have had nothing to do with BTC. This is not a witch hunt against BTC, it is simply pointing out one of the major concerns with BTC at present.

I am sure like other industries they will address it either through force or their own morality of those poor farmers.

Or maybe mining can be begin to operate efficiently on the back of other energy generation projects. Although I'm not sure how those poor farmers would feel about giving away a slice of their cash cow.

 

[WolfeTone]

In a topic of BTC we can't raise the issue of energy usage as a concern because everyone else uses fossil fuels?

?? But the issue has been raised!

As I have mentioned before, it has been a concern of mine.

I have proposed a solution, ban the use of fossil uses for generating energy or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on them.

What do you think?

 

[DublinHead54]

?? But the issue has been raised!

As I have mentioned before, it has been a concern of mine.

I have proposed a solution, ban the use of fossil uses for generating energy or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on them.

What do you think?

Thank you for agreeing with my points regarding Bitcoin and energy usage.

I agree with the work being accelerated under the Paris Climate accords on the global issue of fossil fuel usage.

I'm not sure how your solution solves the issue of BTC as to yours and other posters BTC is decentralised and thus not mandated to adhere to global initiatives. Further another poster claimed the Chinese government / military can do nothing to stop BTC miners.

 

[WolfeTone]

I'm not sure how your solution solves the issue of BTC as to yours and other posters BTC is decentralised and thus not mandated to adhere to global initiatives.

Bitcoin miners don't mine fossil fuels.

So my solution is to make fossil fuels cost prohibitive by either making it illegal to source and use, and/or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on it.
That way, everyone and everything, including bitcoin miners, can move to using clean, renewable energy resources or die.
What do you think?

The Paris Climate accord, while a welcome step in the right direction, has already had its vulnerabilities exposed not least by the USAs withdrawal under Trump.
The PCA is a result of at least 50yrs, or more, of scientific knowledge identifying and warning of the consequences to the planets echo-system of excessive CO2 emissions into the environment.
Bitcoin is just over a decade old, its energy consumption becoming of some concern maybe 6,7 yrs ago?
Already, as @tecate highlights above, we see evidence of innovation to utilise wasted energy and clean renewables. That is because bitcoin miners need to economise to survive and thrive.
But if you can just keystroke a trillion $ here, and a trillion $ there into existence, to sustain consumption of goods and services already reliant of fossil fuel energy, what will be the impact on our environment?

Governments and financial institutions are laggers when it comes to addressing climate change. They are the fat pigs in the room that need the most effort to shift to do anything. It is why the Paris Climate Accord has taken so long to emerge.

 

[tecate]

Bitcoin miners don't mine fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels can be banned tomorrow and it won't make a blind bit of difference to a bitcoin mining sector that's constantly having to seek out unwanted energy in order to remain profitable. I wonder will that mean governments removing subsidies on coal mining and the application of the same standard to other sectors?

 

[DublinHead54]

Bitcoin miners don't mine fossil fuels.

So my solution is to make fossil fuels cost prohibitive by either making it illegal to source and use, and/or impose draconian taxes and tariffs on it.
That way, everyone and everything, including bitcoin miners, can move to using clean, renewable energy resources or die.
What do you think?

The Paris Climate accord, while a welcome step in the right direction, has already had its vulnerabilities exposed not least by the USAs withdrawal under Trump.
The PCA is a result of at least 50yrs, or more, of scientific knowledge identifying and warning of the consequences to the planets echo-system of excessive CO2 emissions into the environment.
Bitcoin is just over a decade old, its energy consumption becoming of some concern maybe 6,7 yrs ago?
Already, as @tecate highlights above, we see evidence of innovation to utilise wasted energy and clean renewables. That is because bitcoin miners need to economise to survive and thrive.
But if you can just keystroke a trillion $ here, and a trillion $ there into existence, to sustain consumption of goods and services already reliant of fossil fuel energy, what will be the impact on our environment?

Governments and financial institutions are laggers when it comes to addressing climate change. They are the fat pigs in the room that need the most effort to shift to do anything. It is why the Paris Climate Accord has taken so long to emerge.

You've ignored my point. In your solution which obviously would work, my question was why would BTC miners have to follow that ban? You've made the argument that BTC is decentralised and not controlled by any government, given it is governments that would instigate the ban, surely then the BTC network would not be impacted?

What has been posted has been novel solutions that have not yet moved into production. Again you present an attitude that any government / corporation cannot evolve and is the problem.

Have you actually looked at the disagreements within the bitcoin industry that have stalled the evolution over the years?

 

[tecate]

Bitcoin mining doesn't need emissions regulation - by virtue of its design, it chases the cheapest energy conceivable on the planet and that energy is renewable and unwanted. Someone or other has suggested that examples of renewables use within bitcoin mining are 'novel'. That's incorrect. With in excess of 70% of bitcoin miners already utilising renewables - and more such projects in the pipeline. Yassine Elmandjra's tweet thread on the subject succinctly clarifies all of the above.


As to any suggestion that decentralisation doesn't work, there is only merit to that argument if every single government comes together and bans it. Good luck with that! China already ordered bitcoin miners out of the country some time ago - that worked well, didn't it.

 

[WolfeTone]

You've ignored my point. In your solution which obviously would work, my question was why would BTC miners have to follow that ban? You've made the argument that BTC is decentralised and not controlled by any government, given it is governments that would instigate the ban, surely then the BTC network would not be impacted?

What has been posted has been novel solutions that have not yet moved into production. Again you present an attitude that any government / corporation cannot evolve and is the problem.

Have you actually looked at the disagreements within the bitcoin industry that have stalled the evolution over the years?

I haven't ignored anything. I proposed a solution that would effectively shutdown the fossil fuel industry. You appear to agree?

If the fossil fuel industry is no longer operating, why would bitcoin miners try to continue source and use energy from fossil fuels? It would be cost prohibitive, instead they could just plug into the clean renewable energy sources that have replaced fossil fuel.

I have not argued that governments / corporations cannot change. I have argued that they are slow to change, evidenced by the existing scientific data that has for 50yrs or more identified and warned of the impact of global warming, culminating in the Paris Accord which is susceptible to implementation, depending on who is charge of government at any given time.

 

[DublinHead54]

I haven't ignored anything. I proposed a solution that would effectively shutdown the fossil fuel industry. You appear to agree?

If the fossil fuel industry is no longer operating, why would bitcoin miners try to continue source and use energy from fossil fuels? It would be cost prohibitive, instead they could just plug into the clean renewable energy sources that have replaced fossil fuel.

I have not argued that governments / corporations cannot change. I have argued that they are slow to change, evidenced by the existing scientific data that has for 50yrs or more identified and warned of the impact of global warming, culminating in the Paris Accord which is susceptible to implementation, depending on who is charge of government at any given time.

Why are you trying to change the topic? I've asked the same question twice and I'm trying to pull this conversation back to the specific topic of BTC.

Can you answer? Or there's no really any point continuing in this echo chamber.

My question was why would BTC miners have to follow that ban? You've made the argument that BTC is decentralised and not controlled by any government, given it is governments that would instigate the ban, surely then the BTC network would not be impacted?