Of which only 1% is for criminal purposes, which is at least a genuine utility. How much can be spent on lattes? It leaves an awful lot of money in daily speculation on this price discovery journey. In fact does Chainanalytics tell us how much is spent on utility transactions? Criminal activity would probably amount to about 50% of that.
You can try and label use of bitcoin as right or wrong all day long Dukey - the fact remains that when this debate opened on AAM, there wasn't anywhere near $10 billion in daily settlement on the Bitcoin network. Its network effect is growing and whilst I don't take anything for granted I suspect that it will continue to grow. Otherwise, the sands are shifting beneath your perennial reliance on the notion that it's all just speculation. Billionaire investor and entrepreneur Mark Cuban pointed to that change earlier this week:
I don't get the dislike of Bitcoin
It varies - there can be pragmatic objections. However, in these parts I suspect its political. The constant reference to 'cultists' is the giveaway. Bitcoin is the first financial instrument that wasn't conceived by Wall Street or their ilk. It sticks in the craw of many that cypherpunks drove this and even though it's being embraced by all manner of stakeholders now, there are many that won't accept it.
The resistance to change aspect that you hit on is the other reason. Millennials downwards are going to be far more comfortable with the use of virtual currencies than their elders (not to mention their ability to understand it better). Others are quite happy with the current order of things and are simply uncomfortable with any moves to change it up. Dukey's suggestion during the course of these discussions that we simply have to have blind faith in central bank high priests even though the financial system is broken underscores that point.
I know I jokingly referenced retrieving all the energy used to produce a bitcoin, so alot of energy is used to solve complex maths equations which at the end produces a bitcoin. What if we reverse the process unsolve the equations reabsorb the bitcoin and release the energy, however that is impossible because of the laws of physics and thermodynamics. There is a hierarchy of energy that you can only move in one direction, once you burn oil to produce heat you cannot retrieve that heat to create oil again.
I think maybe the point I was trying to make above was lost on you. So rather than fight against the laws of physics/thermodynamics, why not embrace bitcoin mining and harness it for the betterment of all? Here's an example. Lets say you are the proposer of a renewable energy project. You run the numbers and its not feasible (due to the irregular nature of the energy capture/production). You lobby central government to subsidise the project but they don't have the $ to do so. You decide to partner with a bitcoin mining co. to utilise at source the excess energy that is being produced at times. This is your subsidy - and now when you run the numbers, the project is viable.
It really sticks in the craw this metaphor of "mining" and "solving complex math", the former creating a gold illusion and the latter sounding very sophisticated and even productive. All part of the cult mythology.This is the correct metaphor. I have locked a €50 note in a box and closed it with a combination key. The box is left out in the open for the first person who can guess the combination. And they can have as many tries as they can fit in until someone opens the box. Note there is no intellectual content in these tries, they are pure random quickpicks.
I see. So what's important to you Duke is not that the bitcoin mining algorithm should provide the most robust network security on the planet but that it should only dare to do so in a manner you deem to be 'intellectual'. Sit with that notion for a while - hopefully you will see how obnoxious a view it is. If you can't, then I'm lost for words.
The locking of the box was totally unnecessary.
Your metaphor is wayward. You're suggesting that there's no need for network security. That's the whole point of the algorithm.
2. There is absolutely no sophistication whatsoever in the race to open it.
Again, see above. It seems its not important to you that it provides the best in class network security because it doesn't reach your levels of 'sophistication'. Is that really what we're talking about here?