Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M...
by arebop on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:38PM
(#17139083)
Your biggest mistake is comparing energy use. You need to compare the total overhead of bitcoin to the total overhead of the competitive financial system. The second mistake is comparing a per-transaction basis; this is of interest when we are comparing suitability for particular applications, but if you want to talk more generally about whether bitcoin is efficient for payments you need to look at things on a value basis (use usd, eur, cny, or gold ounces).
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M...
by hobs on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @06:39PM
(#17139092)
Why?
Why does a new system need to be just as bad as the old one?
Re:Bitcoin Gold Hit by Double Spend Attack, Exchanges Lose M...
by thaumasiotes on Wednesday May 23, 2018 @07:56PM
(#17139614)
It doesn't.
But if the new system is better than the old one, why would comparing it to the old one imply that anyone using the new one should be ashamed of doing so?
All you bitcoin shysters can keep telling yourself that to sleep at night, but you are lying to yourself and you know it.
Bitcoin consumes massive amounts of energy for a pathetically small amount of transactions per second. ON a per transaction basis, Bitcoin uses several orders of magnitude more energy than anything used by modern day financial systems.
Like, embarrassingly, shamefully large amounts of electricity. Y'all should bow your heads in shame for the harm you are doing to the world.
> The service it provides is to guarantee the integrity of the blockchain without the requirement of a central authority.
The blockchain, whose only use case is to enable rampant speculation and amazingly large quantities of fraud.
The whole "space" needs to go away.