Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Bitcoin in a hyperbolic bubble
- Thread starter Duke of Marmalade
- Start date
- Status
@Duke of Marmalade - that's not a reasonable comparison at all. XRP is a centralised token - it couldn't in any way be compared to the global, permissionless, uncensorable, real-time final settlement system that is bitcoin.
I'm not saying that it can't find a use case - but I am saying that you're comparing apples with oranges. And of course, I maintain that this feigned energy use outrage is shambolic - so lets get past that from the get go - and not try and unreasonably demonise bitcoin on that basis.
I'm not saying that it can't find a use case - but I am saying that you're comparing apples with oranges. And of course, I maintain that this feigned energy use outrage is shambolic - so lets get past that from the get go - and not try and unreasonably demonise bitcoin on that basis.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
@tecate okay, I'm prepared to admit that I might be wrong, it was just the first hit I got on Google and in any case if bitcoin is bigger than the Netherlands surely that is more than 3 million US homes.
@WolfeTone do you agree with @tecate that bitcoin is delivering on Henry Ford's vision of a currency backed by an entitlement to future use of electricity?
@WolfeTone do you agree with @tecate that bitcoin is delivering on Henry Ford's vision of a currency backed by an entitlement to future use of electricity?
I'm not saying that bitcoin isn't energy intensive - quite the opposite, I'm saying that it is. I'm saying that there's a false narrative at play with the suggestion that its energy use serves no purpose - that's incorrect.
You'll have to ask him something that i stated rather than something that i didn't claim. My claim is that bitcoin mining converts energy directly into hard money. That's the conversion that takes place. Afterall, nobody denies that there isnt that energy input. The 'future use' is as hard, uncensorable money.
I couldn’t say, all I can image as a currency backed by electricity is those handled held electric shock zappers that featured in comic books and cartoons when growing up.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Nothing to do with uncle Henry's vision, I'm afraid. Any way you will note that the good theo attempted to joke his way out of the unavoidable answer to a direct question. I can see how prosecuting attorneys must feel with a hostile witness
I disagree. It has everything to do with Henry Fords vision. He identified that gold had been centralised by the powers that be - and manipulated by them. He attempted another approach - albeit he didn't have the likes of bitcoin as an option back then. There was a degree of centralisation to that plan and it is that which became the attack vector to bring his plan tumbling down.
Bitcoin has a very clear energy input - that's undeniable. It's a conversion from that energy directly into hard money.
I respect your opinion on this - as I do that of Wolfie. I just don't agree with your opinion.Any way you will note that the good theo attempted to joke his way out of the unavoidable answer to a direct question. I can see how prosecuting attorneys must feel with a hostile witness
Ah jeez, you sprung that one on me and I gave my initial reaction. Tbh, I'm not au fait with Henry Fords theory of money backed by electricity. I may sit down and give it some reading one day, but alas, for the purposes of this discussion I neither provide supporting evidence for the plaintiff nor the defence at this point.
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Your honour, this is a key witness. I put it to him that a promise of entitlement to future electricity is not the same as an assertion that the electricity has already been consumed and he protests that he is not familiar with HF theory. I will produce witnesses that show that this republican, leftie, woke, nigh eve gentleman is in fact in thrall to @tecate and that abomination that calls itself bitcoin and I put it to the jury that he will never testify against the accused. I made a mistake calling him to the stand.
Last edited:
Ok, so im dipping my toe in. @Duke of Marmalade its not looking good for you from the get-go.
For a moment, forget all about bitcoin and focus on what HF had to say in 1921 about a currency backed by electricity.
Ford would replace Gold with Energy Currency and Stop Wars
"The essential evil of gold in its relation to war is the fact that it can be controlled. Break the control and you stop war."
This type of language sound familiar in 2021?
What could he mean? It seems quite obvious what he wants - end of war (don't we all), but he is quite forthright in the causes of war. At which I am minded to refer, once again, to Professor Fergusons "Ascent of Money" series, which for anyone who has watched it will pick up on the common theme of money being the ever pervasive factor in war.
We all already knew that of course, but for many including myself history is generally taught in terms of blurred contradictions, clashing ideologies, hero's and villains of the battlefield upon which flags are raised and then honored - a means of human communication invoking common collective will and interest across space and time.
Rarely do the bankers get a mention. Or rather their pervasive control on the money supply, and in HF's time, then money supply was backed by gold.
So its not so obvious for simple folk like me, what he means by ending the control of the gold supply in the hands of international bankers, insofar as how the control can be ended. And its not yet, so obvious to me how he considered electricity could do this.
Nevertheless, from a pure observation and considering electricity is available to all but the most destitute or remotest regions of earth, there is something definitely to be considered about how electricity, as a money supply has merit.
From my perspective, he appears to envisage electricity as a means to providing greater autonomy to the population - in time inducing greater prosperity. In the article he talks, quite rightly, of a new era of civilisation;
"Almost everyone in the world except the newspapers and the bankers recognizes that civilisation has entered on a new era"....hard to disagree?
I'm pondering here, it will take time to get an overall sense of what HF was talking about and what @tecate has introduced to discussion. It has opened another level, particularly as I am recorded as having raised my concerns about the energy use of bitcoin.
Speaking of bitcoin, and considering the above I am minded to something I wrote a few months back that resonates with me somewhat.
Back in November 2020 I wrote;
" I would consider bitcoin having the prospect of being a great equaliser. Acting as a bulwark against manipulation (human nature) and offering economic opportunity and autonomy to anyone with an internet connection."
The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future page 7 #139
I won't pretend that me and HF were on the same page distanced only by space and time, but Im only dipping my toe and I sense a linkage there.
For a moment, forget all about bitcoin and focus on what HF had to say in 1921 about a currency backed by electricity.
Ford would replace Gold with Energy Currency and Stop Wars
"The essential evil of gold in its relation to war is the fact that it can be controlled. Break the control and you stop war."
This type of language sound familiar in 2021?
What could he mean? It seems quite obvious what he wants - end of war (don't we all), but he is quite forthright in the causes of war. At which I am minded to refer, once again, to Professor Fergusons "Ascent of Money" series, which for anyone who has watched it will pick up on the common theme of money being the ever pervasive factor in war.
We all already knew that of course, but for many including myself history is generally taught in terms of blurred contradictions, clashing ideologies, hero's and villains of the battlefield upon which flags are raised and then honored - a means of human communication invoking common collective will and interest across space and time.
Rarely do the bankers get a mention. Or rather their pervasive control on the money supply, and in HF's time, then money supply was backed by gold.
So its not so obvious for simple folk like me, what he means by ending the control of the gold supply in the hands of international bankers, insofar as how the control can be ended. And its not yet, so obvious to me how he considered electricity could do this.
Nevertheless, from a pure observation and considering electricity is available to all but the most destitute or remotest regions of earth, there is something definitely to be considered about how electricity, as a money supply has merit.
From my perspective, he appears to envisage electricity as a means to providing greater autonomy to the population - in time inducing greater prosperity. In the article he talks, quite rightly, of a new era of civilisation;
"Almost everyone in the world except the newspapers and the bankers recognizes that civilisation has entered on a new era"....hard to disagree?
I'm pondering here, it will take time to get an overall sense of what HF was talking about and what @tecate has introduced to discussion. It has opened another level, particularly as I am recorded as having raised my concerns about the energy use of bitcoin.
Speaking of bitcoin, and considering the above I am minded to something I wrote a few months back that resonates with me somewhat.
Back in November 2020 I wrote;
" I would consider bitcoin having the prospect of being a great equaliser. Acting as a bulwark against manipulation (human nature) and offering economic opportunity and autonomy to anyone with an internet connection."
The Bitcoin threads could be interesting in the future page 7 #139
I won't pretend that me and HF were on the same page distanced only by space and time, but Im only dipping my toe and I sense a linkage there.
The article continues on pg.6 where Ford is quoted as stating:
"Under the currency system, the standard would be a certain amount of energy exerted for one hour that would be equal to one dollar".
Bitcoin is digital money for a digital era and so naturally enough its design differs. However, in terms of expended energy being transformed into hard money, how are they not similar?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Oh dear. I fear the thread has not only lost all common sense it has also lost its sense of humour. HF was referring to entitlement to future electricity as a backing for currency not to the electricity used in creating it. @WolfeTone, I am not asking you (no point) I am telling you.
You have pivoted the discussion to bitcoin the crusade against war mongering central bankers, a favourite playground of Big Short. A bit of an irony that the engine of this crusade is centralised in Russia, China and Belarus.
You have pivoted the discussion to bitcoin the crusade against war mongering central bankers, a favourite playground of Big Short. A bit of an irony that the engine of this crusade is centralised in Russia, China and Belarus.
Totally different because ford's vision was a currency backed by future energy consumption to be used for useful goods not consumed by computers to produce nothing but a virtual currency. I doubt satoshi envisanged bitcoin getting to such levels that it consumed grotesque amounts of electricity. Is that not now the fundamental flaw in bitcoin becoming mainstream, the code is stuck and the original creater is an enigma so can't be called upon to change this ridiculous impediment. Everything in life has to be changed as circumstances change but bitcoin is stuck with this ridiculous legacy.
Oh dear, indeed. After politely informing you that I was not au fait with HF theory, you persisted in your agent provocateurconveniently edited
Once again, your penchant to dismiss that which does not agree with your narrative comes to the fore. Quite simply Duke, I have no real grasp of what HF was suggesting with his theory. My limited knowledge on this is there to see. All I know, is that when I did dip my toe in the matter, the very first thing I came across was a newspaper article citing the esteemed HF.
I'm not disputing this for a moment, but what appears to be ever lacking is any understanding of why HF wanted to do this? There was gold, there was the dollar, backed by gold standard - what was HF's beef? What was the problem he was trying to fix?
Duke of Marmalade
Registered User
- Messages
- 4,588
Wolfie the HF meme is an interesting one and maybe worthy of a separate topic. But what I am taking issue with is the claims by the bitcoin community that bitcoin is delivering on his vision. The words "electricity" and "currency" are common but I hope I have got a little nearer to convincing you that bitcoin and in particular its massive consumption (as opposed to production) of electricity do not in any way fulfill that role. It is the readiness of the cult to grab any hype whether valid or not that is telling.
Perhaps, and perhaps that is why s/t/he/y have disappeared?
Dear Joe, you can quote me several times raising the spectre of the energy usage of bitcoin. You can quote me several times in stating that bitcoins demise will occur once a fundamental flaw is discovered, or if a newer technology does what bitcoin does (or supposed to do), but even better.
On the other hand, now that this fundamental flaw has been uncovered by yourself and others, surely the unravelling of the bitcoin phenomenon is imminent?
Or is there another side to the tale?
The BOHA , so prevalent in earlier discourses appears to have waned somewhat from the lexicon of no-coiners.
The Its only used by criminals still gets an airing occasionally, usually by new-commentators to the sector, playing a bit of catch-up
The Tether FUD, has unraveled and returned to zero value once the fundamental flaw in that theory was exposed.
So surely now, aside from the faithfuls like myself, the unraveling of bitcoin with this fundamental flaw is imminent?
Aye, but I have never proclaimed that bitcoin is delivering on his vision. You cast your line in my direction hoping to hook a fish, instead you got tangled in a disused shopping trolley
.I don't entirely understand what HF's vision was, I get a sense of it. How it would function in practical terms I have no idea.
Energy consumption is one thing, consumption of climate-changing fossil fuels v clean renewables is another thing.
If bitcoin were to consume 100% carbon-emission free, clean, renewable energy, what odds how much energy it consumed?
As tecate has mentioned
There is a clear impetus in bitcoin mining, for sourcing clean renewable energy.
Could one unit of HFs new currency be redeemed for the equivalent in electricity?
@Joe - you're struggling with this but the energy input doesn't produce nothing. It provides for the security of what is the most secure monetary network in existence. There is more energy being expended with people watching cat videos on youtube today than on btc mining yet no feigned outrage on that front.
Another piece of FUD that has been outed. Bitcoin mining could be more optimally distributed, yes - but what you're referring to does not provide a sufficient attack vector to be detrimental to bitcoin.
Both of you have claimed this but it's wayward. I've never seen anyone else suggest this here or elsewhere. There isn't any possibility that he didn't foresee increased energy consumption levels. He planned for it and designed it in.
Except that it was designed in for a reason. Other than that, I agree that everything evolves over time. If you are suggesting that bitcoin has been usurped by a superior decentralised digital currency, what is that currency?
Are you suggesting that bitcoin is stopped in its tracks because of energy use - because I don't agree. This FUD is causing corporates some confusion when they consider ESG policy but that just represents a knowledge gap that needs to be bridged. It's a false narrative and decision makers will ultimately be well informed enough to push past it.joe sod said:
Last edited:
DublinHead54
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,092
Bitcoin miners can't move their operations as freely and easily as BTC moves around the world.
Is there not a recognition that Bitcoin miners are organizations seeking a profit that are tied to their locations / borders / government policy? The owners of the Chinese mining operations can't just pick up and move to Iceland if there is cheaper renewable energy.
No, they can't. But Icelandic mining operations can.
- Status