People in HN are in a massive bubble; you see it with other topics too. It's nice to look here for some tech sentiment and interesting article sometimes, but for most cutting edge stuff this forum is always full of naysayers.
If you try to help them understand, you're generally attacked as if you are shill, and then they continue along in their ignorant bubble. It's a shame, but their attitude isn't conducive to me losing any sleep.
You buy bitcoin at the price you deserve.
This is out-of-touch on so many levels. What about people born in ten years? What about people born in ten years in developing countries? The only thing crypto“currencies” have done is increase the wealth disparity and greed.
Regarding developing countries, bitcoin provides anyone with a phone access to a bank, and one that offers better savings accounts than any fiat account.
Alternatively wait until every man and his dog already have it and the price has stabilised and it's a no brainer (say 10 or 20 years)
You buy bitcoin at the price you deserve.
I think Bitcoin is one of the many way that the economy is rigged against economically insecure retail investors. The more money that gets funneled from the middle class into Michael Saylor and crew's pocket the closer it brings us to civil war.
Checkout
End Times: Elites, Counter-Elites, and the Path of Political Disintegration by Peter Turchin
https://www.amazon.com/End-Times-Counter-Elites-Political-Di...
I highly recommend reading "The Creature from Jekyll Island" which explains everything that's wrong with central banking/fiat currencies and will help you understand the devastating effect it is having on the world.
Sure, there is a transfer of wealth while bitcoin is monetizing. But you buy bitcoin at the price you deserve. Michael Saylor deserves everything he's going to get. He's a visionary with balls of steel - he's laid it all on the line. If you try to avoid making bitcoin whales richer by not buying bitcoin, you'll simply be cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Good luck buying WBA stock at a higher price in the future!
Proof of work is enormously socially valuable and will change the world. Bitcoin may not be the PoW application to do it (although it also might be) but proof of work is here to stay because of the huge advantages it has over the existing system where individuals/institutions insert themselves between transactions to their own profit.
RE energy, not here to argue philosophy. Just going to point out that if that is your concern luckily the world is going over to renewables so that particular objection will be gone soon anyway.
This is dangerously missing the peril of the current situation.
The problem with our current energy makeup is not "there's not enough renewables".
The problem with our current energy makeup is "there are too many carbon emissions".
As a first-order effect, it does not matter how many renewables we bring online. What matters is taking fossil fuels offline. It does not matter if renewables make up an ever-increasing percentage of an increasing energy market, because the problem is not the relative market share of fossil fuels, it is the absolute amount of emissions, which is already more than our planet can handle. And the increasing demand for energy makes taking fossil fuel plants offline less viable than it otherwise would be, and bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace, which makes it an existential threat to mankind.
Please trust me when I say that I do not give a damn about the price of bitcoin. What I care about is stopping runaway energy consumption, and from that perspective proof-of-work is the biggest existential threat to humanity since the atom bomb.
Using energy is not an issue, it's how we produce it that matters. This applies to all forms of energy use of which bitcoin is just a tiny fraction.
Bitcoin will not compete with current energy demand which is geographically constrained. Bitcoin miners can operate at any location in the world and are incentivised to use free, unwanted, waste energy. Any miners that try to increase the demand of current energy supplies will be uneconomical and go out of business.
Also miners using more energy does not directly increase the price of bitcoin. Ultimately the amount of (otherwise wasted) energy used by the network will be limited by the transaction fees which are a free market.
Mate, this is ridiculous.
Global energy usage was 179000 Twh (terawatt hours) in 2022. (https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-consumption)
Bitcoin energy usage was at its highest in 2022 at 200 Twh. (https://www.statista.com/statistics/881472/worldwide-bitcoin...)
So 200/179000 * 100 = 0.11%
Bitcoin energy usage accounted for 0.11% of global energy usage and you think it is the biggest threat to humanity since the A-Bomb? Bitcoin is entirely irrelevant to the grand scheme of things re climate emissions.
So you are wrong on this point:
> bitcoin is a nontrivial component of that and it threatens to grow at an exponential pace
Bitcoin IS a trivial component of overall emissions and even with an insane ramp up would not be close to being the biggest issue re emissions.
GP already explained why he thinks that and you did not spend a word addressing that. Here is what GP said:
> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product. As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.
Basically, for BTC to "go to the moon" its energy consumption must also "go to the moon".
> The reason that bitcoin's energy usage is a philosophical nightmare is because it's a system where energy consumption is the product.
False. The "Product" is a permissionless global peer to peer financial network using a (relatively) non-depreciating commodity. Energy consumption is a side-effect of providing this product/service. I'm sure if you thought about it for a bit you would have to agree here. Noone is mining bitcoin for the sake of it, they are mining it for profit and the only reason bitcoin has value is other attributes of the network/commodity itself. So not a good start from OP.
> As opposed to industries which are "merely" energy-intensive, let's take aluminum refining for example, spending more energy to refine aluminum does not create more demand for aluminum, but spending more energy on bitcoin increases the price of bitcoin, which induces more demand, which increases the price, which incentivizes mining, which costs more energy, and so on in a vicious cycle.
This is factually incorrect and easy to see why. Here is a link to an overlapping chart showing the hashrate for bitcoin against the market cap (https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-marketcap-btc....). You'll notice the lack of connection between the market cap (overall price) and the hashing rate. This is an empirical fact based on the data we have so op is wrong once again.
It is true that price increases do incentivise more mining but the price increases aren't DRIVEN by increases in the mining. Otherwise it would be possible for anyone anywhere to spin up bitcoin farms and make guaranteed profit because the price would rise to a level commensurate with the energy expended. It is the other values of the network (peer-to-peer permissionless decentralised finance with an eventually depreciating commodity) that drive the price. Those are being priced by the market currently and more and more people are deciding to store wealth in the Bitcoin network as opposed to the Fiat network or other assets like property/gold/etc because they feel it gives a better combination of:
1. Store of value (or possibility for profit)
2. Functionality
Bitcoin mining is very often not profitable if you don't have cheap energy or do it collectively which is why it is moves around so much to find cheap energy sources (often using the cheapest forms of energy available which is burn off/extra gen that has no otherwise in grid) and miners pool to take a portion of the gains from mining the next block and getting the bitcoin that come with it.
OP's view of Bitcoin and proof of work is a very slanted one at best, completely factually inaccurate at worst.
Even today, gold miners are working to dig up their proof of work which they can sell into the market. If the work they did was worth more than the gold they found, they'd stop. And if was worth less, more miners would mine, increasing the supply and devaluing the gold.
The only difference with bitcoin is that the work is abstracted. It's simply anchoring the creation of a digital token to work in the physical domain. At the same time, the work performed is protecting the network from attack - it's what makes the blockchain immutable. The work is not wasted - it is being stored as "walls" on top of each block. The further down the block chain you go the more walls of protection you would have to break. It's breathtakingly beautiful.
You're also missing that bitcoin's game theory means that it will ultimately only use unwanted/wasted energy. Bitcoin miners can mine anywhere in the world and those trying to use energy that's in demand by the general population won't be economical.
It is. Mining is literally bruteforcing…
Are we about to find out why, or do I have to pay for your memoir to understand? I've been dying to hear you expand on this for a while now.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/reflexive-negativity-jess-mac...
That’s a shame :( computer graphics is a very interesting topic and I always love to read things about it
So, as is the case with any meaningful investment, you have to ask "cui bono?" with cryptocurrency. Very plainly, you're risking normal money on a venture that doesn't promote anything other than greed and black market transactions. The hackers on this site will oppose it in favor of information freedom and a less money-influenced internet, and the greedy bastards will oppose it because they'd prefer one party owns everything from the start. It's a nuanced situation with lots of different people, good-faith or not, who will oppose or support cryptocurrency for the wrong or right reasons. It's straightforward and non-predatory to say that most people are better off keeping their pay-stub out of the alternative currency market.
But the amount of hubris and preoccupation about this here on HN is really something else. I've long learned not to try to engage in any kind of serious discussion about possible interesting aspects.
Additionally, there are a lot of companies on HN that will try to sell you a terminal in an Electron webview for $9.99/month. Users on HN have to be diligent, so a lot of people will lash out against benign technology. Some of them probably also correctly identified scams and ran their owner out of town on a rail. That might be hubris, but I more think that both the investors and the inventors on HN are tired of reading "Yet Another Money Solution" after 10+ years of watching the old one collapse.
It's not just crypto though, the same saturated dullness is shining through in other discussions as well.
You could quite say the same about any privacy or encryption or really anything that protects you from a centralized entity taking your rights/property. It’s a bit absurd that people are really that blind that they think this is all there is to crypto. Your same logic would apply to dollars in that case as well.
Ideologically I'm not opposed to Bitcoin or the idea of it existing for the base it serves. It's too volatile to suggest for serious investment though, and it's reached an uncomfortable echelon of "nerd joke gone too far" for my taste. Real people do not need to waste life-hours learning about this when their local government invests in a clear and immediately fungible form of currency for them already. Investors should not be wasting life-hours learning about a perpetually-irrational investment when other industries are both safer investments and arguably more innovative.
> Your same logic would apply to dollars in that case as well.
It would, mostly. Most people who oppose the online adoption of crypto probably object to the same level of microtransaction in any currency.
Those on HN who believed that such a complete ban on crypto was feasible were always delusional. The cat is out of the bag for both AI and crypto, but in the end, the legal system always gets them to pay up and the regulators for both AI or crypto will get them as well.
No escaping that.