> I think it's fascinating a single transaction expends 700kWh (enough to drive a Model S from SF to New York) and produces 87 grams of e-waste -- and yet somehow costs less than $0.50, which is due to the socialization of costs in the form of block rewards, aka inflation. Each BTC transaction actually costs about $70.
A transaction expends 700kWh of energy? Source?
> But if things go to shit in a country, people can still use Bitcoin and safely transfer value online instead of reverting to trading gold coins in person.
For a small handful of people. That doesn't address the problem on a broad scale. The bar isn't "can Bitcoin address the needs of a small handful of people in Venezuela." Of course it can.
> What about the technology -- do you think it's fascinating that a relatively simple and elegant protocol of incentives and cryptography can result in a self sustaining financial system still running a decade after its release?
I think it's fascinating a single transaction expends 700kWh (enough to drive a Model S from SF to New York) and produces 87 grams of e-waste -- and yet somehow costs less than $0.50, which is due to the socialization of costs in the form of block rewards, aka inflation. Each BTC transaction actually costs about $70.
I think it's fascinating a system brought in to free us from the tyranny of a single entity's ability to freely print currency has had it's pricing entirely subsumed by an entity with the ability to freely print a currency who's symbol is just one character off.
Just because something's simple doesn't make it good.