BBC News - How Bitcoin's vast energy use could burst its bubble
I do wonder if this actually could be the Achilles heel for bitcoin. A shared general ledger makes sense but the baked-in inefficiencies could be an issue unless miners start backing out, which could in turn destabilize the system. The thing is, I don't see how bitcoin can pivot to transition to something more steady state. The crypto to rule them all may not be bitcoin.
Comments
-
that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
-
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
-
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
-
What bothers me about crypto - and i'm not all techie smart and shit on why my fear isn't just being alarmist - but the technology sits out there somewhere. And who's to say that decentralized network/ledger isn't somehow hacked or compromised? Or we all get on the bitcoin wagon only to realize it's been a scam to separate us from our gold or dollars and then they bait and switch and override the passwords?DerekJohnson said:
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
Kind of @oregonblitzkrieg-esque, I know - but god knows how many hacks do we see in a year? The Throbber is still not over Macho Grande or Adult Friend Finder getting hacked.
-
Didn’t read, but considering most is mined in China it’s just another reason they are laughing at the stupidity of the West.
-
Not alarmist at all IMO. And @HoustonHusky gives me yet another reason to be wary. I didn't know most of it was "manufactured" in China.PurpleThrobber said:
What bothers me about crypto - and i'm not all techie smart and shit on why my fear isn't just being alarmist - but the technology sits out there somewhere. And who's to say that decentralized network/ledger isn't somehow hacked or compromised? Or we all get on the bitcoin wagon only to realize it's been a scam to separate us from our gold or dollars and then they bait and switch and override the passwords?DerekJohnson said:
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
Kind of @oregonblitzkrieg-esque, I know - but god knows how many hacks do we see in a year? The Throbber is still not over Macho Grande or Adult Friend Finder getting hacked.
Like Dave says in Stalin's video. If you don't understand it (and I don't), don't throw money at it.
@backthepack what say you Fudgie? -
If I totalled up all the time I've spent watching documentaries and reading blogs and prospectuses and shit on crypto, it would make you cry.creepycoug said:
Not alarmist at all IMO. And @HoustonHusky gives me yet another reason to be wary. I didn't know most of it was "manufactured" in China.PurpleThrobber said:
What bothers me about crypto - and i'm not all techie smart and shit on why my fear isn't just being alarmist - but the technology sits out there somewhere. And who's to say that decentralized network/ledger isn't somehow hacked or compromised? Or we all get on the bitcoin wagon only to realize it's been a scam to separate us from our gold or dollars and then they bait and switch and override the passwords?DerekJohnson said:
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
Kind of @oregonblitzkrieg-esque, I know - but god knows how many hacks do we see in a year? The Throbber is still not over Macho Grande or Adult Friend Finder getting hacked.
Like Dave says in Stalin's video. If you don't understand it (and I don't), don't throw money at it.
@backthepack what say you Fudgie?
I still don't have comfort with it. Until I can go to Albertsons and buy a loaf of bread with it, it feels like a scam. The Throbber does not like being scammed.
The tulip futures analogy a few days ago made total sense to me with regards to crypto currency.
-
Well its either that or be a racist. So do you support a white ethnostate?DerekJohnson said:
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
-
I get how it works. But I dont get how you actually sell it.PurpleThrobber said:
If I totalled up all the time I've spent watching documentaries and reading blogs and prospectuses and shit on crypto, it would make you cry.creepycoug said:
Not alarmist at all IMO. And @HoustonHusky gives me yet another reason to be wary. I didn't know most of it was "manufactured" in China.PurpleThrobber said:
What bothers me about crypto - and i'm not all techie smart and shit on why my fear isn't just being alarmist - but the technology sits out there somewhere. And who's to say that decentralized network/ledger isn't somehow hacked or compromised? Or we all get on the bitcoin wagon only to realize it's been a scam to separate us from our gold or dollars and then they bait and switch and override the passwords?DerekJohnson said:
There's just a certain tone that permeated the piece that felt like manipulation. My spidey sense kicked in. Just like when I read something from the Washington Post or NYT trying to manipulate politically.Mad_Son said:
How so? I don't actually wholly disagree. I certainly think the quote from Biden has an agenda (as I would expect from the leader of the country with the dominant global currency), but I think there are salient points in there about bitcoin specifically, as opposed to crypto in general, which would give me pause. When maintaining the general ledger becomes too expensive, then what?DerekJohnson said:that article struck me as being driven by an agenda
Kind of @oregonblitzkrieg-esque, I know - but god knows how many hacks do we see in a year? The Throbber is still not over Macho Grande or Adult Friend Finder getting hacked.
Like Dave says in Stalin's video. If you don't understand it (and I don't), don't throw money at it.
@backthepack what say you Fudgie?
I still don't have comfort with it. Until I can go to Albertsons and buy a loaf of bread with it, it feels like a scam. The Throbber does not like being scammed.
The tulip futures analogy a few days ago made total sense to me with regards to crypto currency. -
Bitcoin's energy use is what secures it. It's also a great use of otherwise wasted energy, from hydropower that goes unused in remote regions to the oil/gas industry using it rather than flaring off excess. If proof of stake proves to be superior, Bitcoin can switch to that.
-
The BBC is the British equivalent of Faux News/CNN/MSLSD.
The Central Banks hate bitcoin. It appears they'll be using their henchman, the MSM and the Climate Change Nazis, to push the "Bitcoin uses top much fossil fuels" angle to try to stop the unraveling of the Rothschild CB System. -
Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said -
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
-
Proof of work is only good insofar as you have energy to burn. As @HoustonHusky noted, China is doing a lot of mining now a days. Proof of stake certainly has its own issues, but saying that using gas that would otherwise be flared makes this a good system doesn't make sense to me. That isn't scalable and having a financial system based on having excess, unusable energy doesn't strike me as stable long term.BuffBuffPass said:Bitcoin's energy use is what secures it. It's also a great use of otherwise wasted energy, from hydropower that goes unused in remote regions to the oil/gas industry using it rather than flaring off excess. If proof of stake proves to be superior, Bitcoin can switch to that.
You mention switching to proof of state as an option - but that is what I mean by saying I'm not sure how they pivot. I am not sure how you cut over. Freeze the currency and tell everyone to get a new core? That sounds easier said than done to me. -
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know. -
The question is if human release of carbon is really moving the needle, or if the earth goes through cycles. Is the science settled on that point?Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
IDK, but I know the entire world is going after carbon-neutral with a hard-on. I had no idea Formula 1 was using hybrid power units and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030. -
The science is settled. We understand milankovitch cycles. The human overprint is large and obvious.creepycoug said:
The question is if human release of carbon is really moving the needle, or if the earth goes through cycles. Is the science settled on that point?Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
IDK, but I know the entire world is going after carbon-neutral with a hard-on. I had no idea Formula 1 was using hybrid power units and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030. -
It's known as "climate change' this time around on the grift.Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
Natural gas is about as 'clean' as it gets right now.
You do understand that 'clean' energy requires massive amounts of extraction of things like lithium and silver and other metals, right?
-
I do understand that. Thank you for asking. That's not relevant to the fact that anthropogenic global warming is real. That in and of itself is only indirectly relevant to the energy usage component of bitcoin. If you can tie that to a public demand to decrease energy consumption which might inhibit bitcoin in some way, then I'd love to hear your contribution.PurpleThrobber said:
It's known as "climate change' this time around on the grift.Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
Natural gas is about as 'clean' as it gets right now.
You do understand that 'clean' energy requires massive amounts of extraction of things like lithium and silver and other metals, right? -
We understand it so much that all of our models have been utterly wrong. Heck, we recently just found that all of the satellite measured CO2 radiation data has been well under even the most optimistic predictions...in normal times that would be good news but because it goes against the narrative it’s ignored.Mad_Son said:
The science is settled. We understand milankovitch cycles. The human overprint is large and obvious.creepycoug said:
The question is if human release of carbon is really moving the needle, or if the earth goes through cycles. Is the science settled on that point?Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
IDK, but I know the entire world is going after carbon-neutral with a hard-on. I had no idea Formula 1 was using hybrid power units and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030.
Think of it this way...the atmosphere is on average somewhat around 2% water...a gas that absorbs more greatly across the infrared spectrum than CO2. Meanwhile CO2 is measured in parts per million. Even the models admit direct changes in CO2 aren’t enough to move the needle significantly, so the models have multiplier effects (increase in CO2 cause x to happen, x causes more warming...now we get severe temperature rise). Unfortunately for the fear mongers and fortunately for the world these models have failed miserably in predicting anything since they started this in the 1990s.
The statistic fraud of the “historical” temperature is an entirely different beast...as a good example Michael Mann is nothing more than a charlatan. And I’m still looking for a good explanation as to how the pre-1970 historical temperature record changed between the 1980s and 1990s...it’s almost as if it’s magic.
Or a religion.
-
Proof of stake has lots of issues. Ethereum is switching to it though so it can be the guinea pig both in terms of implementation (fork + airdrop?) and in terms of whether it actually works. My guess is it will be a little less secure and also trend towards centralization over time, which is why I'd be against it in the first place. But Ethereum is more about faking decentralization and security so it may work for them and not Bitcoin.Mad_Son said:
Proof of work is only good insofar as you have energy to burn. As @HoustonHusky noted, China is doing a lot of mining now a days. Proof of stake certainly has its own issues, but saying that using gas that would otherwise be flared makes this a good system doesn't make sense to me. That isn't scalable and having a financial system based on having excess, unusable energy doesn't strike me as stable long term.BuffBuffPass said:Bitcoin's energy use is what secures it. It's also a great use of otherwise wasted energy, from hydropower that goes unused in remote regions to the oil/gas industry using it rather than flaring off excess. If proof of stake proves to be superior, Bitcoin can switch to that.
You mention switching to proof of state as an option - but that is what I mean by saying I'm not sure how they pivot. I am not sure how you cut over. Freeze the currency and tell everyone to get a new core? That sounds easier said than done to me.
Talking about gas flares was only to point out one of the ways that Bitcoin unlocks otherwise stranded/wasted energy. It's not the main point, but it is certainly relevant when talking about energy usage. Of course the current banking system and gold also use a ton of energy, but the critics largely overlook that.
-
Not directly on-topic, but I was visiting my mom this weekend, and she told me that my uncle's son (whatever that makes him to me), who has not been exactly a home run kid - certainly not damned near perfect - made $150,000 on bitcoin. His investment was $10,000. Of course, this is a branch of the family we don't write about that much. He'll be playing with that "house money" until someone fucks it out of him in no time.
That is the fundamental difference between that branch and my branch. That branch is loaded with academically and artistically talented people, and also loaded with a lot of bad life choices. That branch will take the $140k and pretend like it never mattered and roll it until it's gone.
My branch, let's call us the slow strategy group, would first breathe a sigh of release we didn't lose the $10,000, and then take the $140,000 as a sign from God that he wanted us to have it, and we'd bank it. -
I don't know what YouTube videos you've been watching but your generalizations here are simply wrong. If you want to discuss this in a different thread, feel free to pull up the literature reviews that do the metaanalysis on the accuracy of climate models and we can talk.HoustonHusky said:
We understand it so much that all of our models have been utterly wrong. Heck, we recently just found that all of the satellite measured CO2 radiation data has been well under even the most optimistic predictions...in normal times that would be good news but because it goes against the narrative it’s ignored.Mad_Son said:
The science is settled. We understand milankovitch cycles. The human overprint is large and obvious.creepycoug said:
The question is if human release of carbon is really moving the needle, or if the earth goes through cycles. Is the science settled on that point?Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
IDK, but I know the entire world is going after carbon-neutral with a hard-on. I had no idea Formula 1 was using hybrid power units and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030.
Think of it this way...the atmosphere is on average somewhat around 2% water...a gas that absorbs more greatly across the infrared spectrum than CO2. Meanwhile CO2 is measured in parts per million. Even the models admit direct changes in CO2 aren’t enough to move the needle significantly, so the models have multiplier effects (increase in CO2 cause x to happen, x causes more warming...now we get severe temperature rise). Unfortunately for the fear mongers and fortunately for the world these models have failed miserably in predicting anything since they started this in the 1990s.
The statistic fraud of the “historical” temperature is an entirely different beast...as a good example Michael Mann is nothing more than a charlatan. And I’m still looking for a good explanation as to how the pre-1970 historical temperature record changed between the 1980s and 1990s...it’s almost as if it’s magic.
Or a religion. -
The current system certainly uses plenty of energy, but it does not have the same mechanisms of scaling. Bitcoin can scale back, but that goes back to my concern about stability when that occurs. I would hate for some folks to pull out because the energy costs got to steep, so now China exceeds 50% of the work.BuffBuffPass said:
Proof of stake has lots of issues. Ethereum is switching to it though so it can be the guinea pig both in terms of implementation (fork + airdrop?) and in terms of whether it actually works. My guess is it will be a little less secure and also trend towards centralization over time, which is why I'd be against it in the first place. But Ethereum is more about faking decentralization and security so it may work for them and not Bitcoin.Mad_Son said:
Proof of work is only good insofar as you have energy to burn. As @HoustonHusky noted, China is doing a lot of mining now a days. Proof of stake certainly has its own issues, but saying that using gas that would otherwise be flared makes this a good system doesn't make sense to me. That isn't scalable and having a financial system based on having excess, unusable energy doesn't strike me as stable long term.BuffBuffPass said:Bitcoin's energy use is what secures it. It's also a great use of otherwise wasted energy, from hydropower that goes unused in remote regions to the oil/gas industry using it rather than flaring off excess. If proof of stake proves to be superior, Bitcoin can switch to that.
You mention switching to proof of state as an option - but that is what I mean by saying I'm not sure how they pivot. I am not sure how you cut over. Freeze the currency and tell everyone to get a new core? That sounds easier said than done to me.
Talking about gas flares was only to point out one of the ways that Bitcoin unlocks otherwise stranded/wasted energy. It's not the main point, but it is certainly relevant when talking about energy usage. Of course the current banking system and gold also use a ton of energy, but the critics largely overlook that.
That is a fair point on Ethereum - they will be able to pave the way here - significantly mitigates that risk for Bitcoin which I felt was their biggest hurdle. Even if Ethereum fails over this, Bitcoin could take the lessons learned if they had to try to go that route. -
I’m not sure what is worse...the arrogance of that response or the weakness of it. Youtube?Mad_Son said:
I don't know what YouTube videos you've been watching but your generalizations here are simply wrong. If you want to discuss this in a different thread, feel free to pull up the literature reviews that do the metaanalysis on the accuracy of climate models and we can talk.HoustonHusky said:
We understand it so much that all of our models have been utterly wrong. Heck, we recently just found that all of the satellite measured CO2 radiation data has been well under even the most optimistic predictions...in normal times that would be good news but because it goes against the narrative it’s ignored.Mad_Son said:
The science is settled. We understand milankovitch cycles. The human overprint is large and obvious.creepycoug said:
The question is if human release of carbon is really moving the needle, or if the earth goes through cycles. Is the science settled on that point?Mad_Son said:
Global warming is a fact. Take your conspiracy theories to the Tug.PurpleThrobber said:
Jay Chinslee just pretty much banned natural gas in the State of Washington. But but global warming - riiiiight.UWerentThereMan said:Energy is the security of Bitcoin. The more miners fighting to mint blocks, and nodes verifying blocks, the more secure the blockchain is from cheaters. I’m no expert, just been reading up lately on it; I’ve heard it compared to the US dollar being secured by the military. Without that security, oil isn’t traded in US dollars. Without the world trading on US dollar, the value of the money would plummet.
There are Bitcoin mining companies like Great American Mining (https://gam.ai/) that setup near natural gas mining sites to buy the flare gas for energy to mine Bitcoin. These natural gas sites are far from populous areas where there isn’t a real use for that gas and they’re putting the otherwise wasted flare offs to a profitable use. Also pretty cool, the Bitcoin miners aren’t using large data centers to run their rigs; these are mobile platforms that can move to new sites with the energy source.
Edit: what buffbuffpass said
If people don't think politics and economics are essentially one and the same, they are daft.
TTTTT, I know.
IDK, but I know the entire world is going after carbon-neutral with a hard-on. I had no idea Formula 1 was using hybrid power units and is aiming for carbon neutrality by 2030.
Think of it this way...the atmosphere is on average somewhat around 2% water...a gas that absorbs more greatly across the infrared spectrum than CO2. Meanwhile CO2 is measured in parts per million. Even the models admit direct changes in CO2 aren’t enough to move the needle significantly, so the models have multiplier effects (increase in CO2 cause x to happen, x causes more warming...now we get severe temperature rise). Unfortunately for the fear mongers and fortunately for the world these models have failed miserably in predicting anything since they started this in the 1990s.
The statistic fraud of the “historical” temperature is an entirely different beast...as a good example Michael Mann is nothing more than a charlatan. And I’m still looking for a good explanation as to how the pre-1970 historical temperature record changed between the 1980s and 1990s...it’s almost as if it’s magic.
Or a religion.
You going to claim the models that have failed miserably the last 30 years are now somehow accurate and questioning them is sacrilegious? Or that the historical temperature dataset isn’t a mess? Or that the hockey stick is somehow fake but real?
Believe what you want...don’t really care...but to say the science is “settled” is not only ignorant but flies in the face of the last 30 years.
I’ve got nothing against green technology...heck I think some of my patents in it are quite good...but I absolutely despise fear porn from “settled science” and the forcing of what end up being horrible decisions from it. Heck...look at the last year with the world’s COVID response. And the last thing we need is some megalomaniac like Bill Gates doing something stupid like pouring dust in the atmosphere to ‘save the world’ from global warming and causing a true catastrophe.
