G3n0t

Non sense. Linux makes many details about computers much more explicit than Windows does. Even installing Ubuntu teaches you something about how computers boot, what partitions are and file systems do. Linux also makes it easy to get started in programming on the OS level -- thanks to the Internet it is way easier to find information about how everything works.

So from a learning experience perspective, a kid tinkering with Linux might gain more insight into how computers work and than, say, on Windows or Mac.

The article does not contain many well founded arguments. However, I'd like to ask this question: Is an asset price inflation a Ponzi scheme? In other words: Would Bitcoin critics describe a housing bubble in which many people suddenly start investing in real estate as a Ponzi scheme?

Then I would agree even as a HODLER.

> But you can’t actually use Bitcoin for anything?

Well, in US and Europe this is certainly true. I've yet to see a reasonably large shop accepting bitcoins. But my vision is blurred by the fact I am living in a wealthy Western country that has a comparably free banking system.

In other parts of the world, South America for example or Asia the situation is difficult for the average Joe to earn savings either due to galloping inflation or tight banking regulations. In those countries street markets are practically run by crypto currencies or derivatives.

I didn't mean to imply Bitcoin shouldn't be criticized. But saying Bitcoin simply wastes energy by applying a "proof of work" scheme is totally naive. It's not easy to replace and the advantages and risks of "proof of stake" are not clear, yet, I belive.

BTW: For others who have never heard of "proof of stake" and "proof of work" ...

"Proof of work" requires miners to solve a cryptographic puzzle taking the giant share of all computing time required to validate a block of transactions. This is to assure nobody gains complete control over the blockchain and, hence, keep it being a decentralized effort. On the other hand, by providing a miner fee and a reward (currently about 6 BTC) the system creates incentive for miners to keep on validating Bitcoin transactions despite the costs. It's a careful balance and probably the most difficult aspect of the Bitcoin system to grasp.

"Proof of stake" means the miner with the highest monetary stake receives the largest share of the mining fees. In this scheme a miner needs to deposit quite a lot of money to be allowed to compete in the creation of the next transaction block. So it's not computing power enabling a successful miner but his or hers prior investment in the crypto currency. I think you understand now, why such a scheme would have been impossible to implement in Bitcoin 12 years ago.

Ethereum is preparing to switch over to "proof of stake" at the same time as they're preparing to run multiple block chains at the same time. Ethereum 2.0 hopes to save a lot of cost in maintaining its block chain and at the same time to boost its transaction turn over significantly. But it's also a risky undertaking. Keep that in mind if you plan to invest in Ethereum.

Well, "SWIFT" international bank transactions require up to 5 work days. Here in Germany, sending money from one bank to another still takes at least one up to three _work_ days. So in the worst case, you're wiring money to sb on Friday and he will receive it by Wednesday. Compare that to 10 minutes required by Bitcoin anywhere on the planet.

Of course, there are special purpose banking products to accelerate transactions but they are also more expensive than Bitcoin's miner fee.

> Proof of work is inherently wasteful.

But it's a necessary evil for a _distributed_ currency. It's a way to protect payment validation from being controlled by a single operator by making a "hostile take over" very expensive. IMHO criticizing Bitcoin for its "proof of work" algorithm only converys a serious lack of understanding of how crypto currencies actually work.

There is an alternative, namely, the "proof of stake" scheme that Ethereum is going to switch over to but it has other short comings that might or might not outweigh the benefits of energy savings.

> - The ever expanding blockchain is wasteful (in storage, computation, network).

Well, the blockchain's current size is 323.54 GB. That's quite a lot but can be stored easily on a $100 SSD. Using $100 worth of storage to maintain an asset market of roughly 600 billion dollars is useful trade off, I would say. Of course, I know the blockchain is being replicated all over the planet but Google's cloud storage probably dwarves its storage requirements.

> - The throughput is way too slow.

Yes, 10 minutes is not very fast. However, compare that to inter bank transactions and this number seems blazingly fast again. However, in my opionion Bitcoin is emerging as an alternative to gold that's primarily used for storing value over long times. It's primary purpose will not be to maintain payment networks. This role will be taken by Ethereum or other alternatives like Stella Lumens, Loopring or Polkadot.

The question of value is one of the most fundamental ones in economic theory. It's got nothing to do with crypto currencies or technology in general. If you really want to understand why we consider Bitcoin valuable (and btw: fiat money, too) go google for "subjective theory of value" and, more specifically, "regression theorem".