Maybe you're thinking of Ethereum, which just moved off GPUs last year and as a result, destroyed the economics around mining with GPUs. So, that whole wasted cycles argument doesn't really hold up any longer.
Bitcoin is a store of value. I can borrow against it as collateral, which gives it real value in finance.
Uhh...okay? My point is obviously that it's a waste of energy. If someone manages to mine it using vacuum tubes powered by an ox on a treadmill, do I have to mention that too?
> Bitcoin is a store of value. I can borrow against it as collateral, which gives it real value in finance.
I'm not disputing that some people are foolish enough to agree to park their money in it. That doesn't make it a stable place to do so, which is, you know, a slightly important quality in a currency.
No, it isn't. We could get into why it isn't, but we both know your mind is made up because you haven't really dived into that yourself. Or if you do really care, start reading a bit of what Dan Held has to say.
https://danhedl.medium.com/pow-is-efficient-aa3d442754d3
> That doesn't make it a stable place to do so, which is, you know, a slightly important quality in a currency.
You're missing the entire point of bitcoin. There can only be 21m. It is something that no government can compete with.
Jack Mallers had an entertaining rant recently... https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/163788645657097832...
As we are seeing right now, banks aren't a stable place. Literally, hundreds of companies were on the verge of losing everything a week ago, until the government bailed them out. USD isn't a stable place either. You probably earn dollars (ie: you buy dollars as a result of working) and those dollars are consistently worth less due to inflation every second of the day. How is that a better model?
Okay, I read the article. And it's an exemplar of the comical reasoning that characterizes cryptocurrency.
First he compares it to Ford's and Edison's idea of using "units of energy" as currency, which didn't work because it was hard to transfer and store. Except that Bitcoin doesn't store energy, it expends it as waste heat. A true energy currency has inherent value because the energy can be used at will to do something useful. Bitcoin can't be converted back into energy. It derives its value from the amount of energy that it has already irreversibly wasted.
Then he argues that wasting energy will "produce more efficient worldwide energy markets with Bitcoin miners performing an arbitrage of electricity between global centers"...by making energy more expensive in places where it's currently cheap. He also apparently thinks that flared methane is a form of renewable energy.
Then he adds a few non-sequiturs about "thermodynamics" to sound sciency. "Doing stuff requires energy, therefore there's no such thing as waste". LMAO. Okay.
Then he tops this steaming pile off with the argument that wasting energy will incentivize the development of nuclear fusion by making energy so expensive that we'll have no choice. And sprinkles on some bullshit about the "Kardashev Scale", as if that's a real thing that has any meaning, to hook the uber-nerds.
I'm sorry, but...give me a fucking break. The fact that this guy passes for a thinker in the Bitcoin community is why people have a hard time taking it seriously. All this nonsense about the Kardashev Scale and "efficient arbitrage" and absurd use of "incentives" makes him sound like a character on Silicon Valley.
> There can only be 21m. It is something that no government can compete with.
I'm well aware of that, I just don't see why it's a good thing. Let's say all or nearly all the Bitcoins are mined someday, and it's the world's primary currency, and it doesn't behave erratically. Economic development continues so there's an ever-increasing amount of real stuff that's worth something, but that ever-increasing value has to be represented by a constant number of coins. So every coin becomes more valuable over time. As with any deflationary scenario, if I already have money I'm going to spend as little as possible because I know it'll have more buying power the longer I wait, and that will suppress economic growth and investment. But this is even worse than typical deflation--there is zero new money being created. If I'm a young person trying to establish my career and finances, how do I ever get a piece of this pie? Not only are there few jobs because people are disincentivized from paying for anything that isn't strictly necessary, but every piece of the pie is already owned by someone and there will never be any new pie. If anything there will be less because some people will take their keys to the grave with them.
> USD isn't a stable place either.
No currency is completely stable, but USD is a hell of a lot safer than BTC. I keep my personal savings in USD. Yes, it'll have less buying power a year from now. But I know its value won't be cut in half by next week. I have no such guarantee with Bitcoin. BTC enthusiasts love to make the argument that because the dollar isn't 100% safe, you should park your money in something that's completely unsafe. It's like saying that because I might get hit by a car tomorrow, I might as well take up recreational Russian roulette.
If you want to create an alternative currency that has mainstream adoption, you have to make something that's demonstrably better for the average person. You can't just say, "well the dollar isn't perfect, so you might as well use $CRYPTO_OF_THE_WEEK". And for the love of god, don't let the idiot who wrote that article do the talking for you.
