Hacker News Reader

Comment by bouncycastle | Hacker News Reader

I like bitcoin but it's hugely wasteful.

Electricity required to process a single transaction equal the consumption of 18 days for an average US household (source: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)

Not only power consumption, these things generate large amounts of e-waste too, comparable to the e-waste generation of Luxemburg (source https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-electronic-waste-monitor/)

It's also terrible to use as a peer-to-peer payment option because it's expensive, slow, and the value fluctuates (in March this year it lost 50% of its value in just a few days)

View on HN

Ethereum (the 2nd most popular cryptocurrency system) is planning to switch to using both sharding and proof of stake instead of proof of work within the next few years, which will solve the problems of high electricity usage from mining and high transaction fees.

Ethereum is a cryptocurrency, but the system also supports tokens which are like other cryptocurrencies on the same blockchain. The DAI token on the Ethereum network is a decentralized stablecoin, pegged to stay at the price of $1 through a smart contract that automatically manages collateral to maintain the peg. The DAI token can be used as a cryptocurrency without the price fluctuation of Bitcoin or Ethereum.

Pity it's all vaporwear and hype used to pump a token

> I like bitcoin but it's hugely wasteful.

Wasteful compared to what?

> It's also terrible to use as a peer-to-peer payment option because it's expensive, slow, and the value fluctuates (in March this year it lost 50% of its value in just a few days)

It's possible to transact in a matter of minutes. After that you can move it to a stable coin if you want to be exposed to USD (or gold) instead.

> Wasteful compared to what?

Compared to every alternative. Look up the sources I've linked,. the amount of energy used by Bitcoin is ludacris and unsustainable.

> It's possible to transact in a matter of minutes

10 minutes on average, but that's only 1 confirmation. You'll need to wait 6 before you can ship the goods. Current cost is $0.50 - so both slow and expensive. (source https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/fee-calculator/)

> After that you can move it to a stable coin

There are no stable coins on bitcoin (that I'm aware of) and you can't use one nativelly. Even if there are, they are custodial risks involved plus moving requires another transaction.

All true, but Ethereum has a noncustodial stable coin. Ethereum is planning to move to proof of stake over the next couple years, which not only reduces energy use dramatically but speeds up transaction finality. There are multi-client testnets running the final PoS spec right now.

> 10 minutes on average, but that's only 1 confirmation. You'll need to wait 6 before you can ship the goods. Current cost is $0.50 - so both slow and expensive. (source https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/fee-calculator/)

Oh boy, wait till you hear about international money transfers.

You mean those old telegraphic transfers? Why should I use that?

With my PayPal/Mastercard/GooglePay/ApplePay I can do an international order in seconds.

Processing != complete. A credit card transaction generally takes 1-3 days to process. Bitcoin is start -> complete in < 10 mins on average.

Nope. 10 minutes for bitcoin is just 1 confirmation. Most exchanges need 3, but it may take significantly more if you don't put enough fees on the transaction.

Meanwhile Credit cards/ApplePay/GooglePay/Paypal/AmazonPay provide the tap-and-go instant purchase experience, even on international orders.

"Tap-and-go" is an illusion, and like I said the payment is not fully processed for 1-3 days. Low-risk merchants (e.g. under $100) can accept crypto on 0 confirmations (just checking wallet balance) and accept the double-spend risk. This is similar to the chargeback risk merchants take by accepting credit cards (albeit with fewer protections on the crypto side).

I agree BTC fees are high, but for even moderately large transactions (>$25), it is cheaper than credit card/ApplePay/GooglePay/Paypal/AmazonPay fees.

Edit: and even after processing, chargebacks are often viable for up to 60 days.

as a customer, I always like that if something goes wrong, eg. product not delivered, there's always the chargeback option.

There's nothing stopping trusted 3rd-parties (e.g. mastercard/visa) from building wrappers to hold the btc in the meantime and mitigate end-user risk (full circle woo!). Definitely fewer protections from bad-actors with direct btc transactions, but that's by design (e.g. no requirement for a third party)

Then it gets disputed and reverted, up to 1 month after tap-and-go.

Credit issuers insure their transactions. BTC has no insurance. Speed of transaction is instant for both.

oh boy, wait till you hear about wirecard

There's no safe alternative in sources you've linked. Also traditional system has huge cost hidden in inflation. The cost of bitcoin and all these footprints is minimal - you get rid off central banks, banks, visa and others. They have the biggest buildings all around the planet filled with the most expensive workers - all the infrastructure runs on much more electricity than few households. And you compare only the payment process cost. What a luck of imagination.

Hidden inflation? Most top GDP economies of the world target the inflation rate to 2% which is about on par with the current issuance rate of Bitcoin. So most people don't understand that Bitcoin is currently powered by its own inflation.

I see you didn't get the word hidden and say what economies are openly and loudly announcing. No offence. Can you explain the last claim, as I'm the one who in this case is included into the most people.

It's not hidden at all.

Most developed economies including USA & UK target 2% inflation. Here you go https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation

https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2019/january/fed-infla....

Actually, top GDP economies now have a major problem since the inflation is way below 2%.

> Wasteful compared to what?

Obviously, it is more energy-intensive than an RTGS (ie. a traditional central bank), which also sports low volatility.

But even if you want a distributed, open-membership system, Stellar has only a marginal increase in energy consumption, a tiny slimmer of the amount needed for Bitcoin. (Obviously, it is volatile, though.)

A traditional large central bank requires the government, the legal system and the military to back up the fiat, which is more expensive than electricity for the miners.

How so?

They are all necessary regardless of the currency.

Nobody (ie. less than 0.0001% of the population) wants to live in a lawless society, and if they achieved it, they would be conquered by a lawful one.

Google probably consumes more electricity than the entire bitcoin network. Do you hate them too?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com