“Why did it regress” is much less interesting than “why did anyone ever fall for this?”
What's interesting to me is that the original idea was clearly brilliant, but never found any of those lateral steps. It's kind of a string theory for programmers now.
First, the underpinnings of Bitcoin are ideological, namely in Austrian economics. This means that any change that caused any inflation would be socially resisted.
Second, most of the issues with Bitcoin stem from the lack of a central authority to do things like chargebacks and handle conflict resolution. It is not possible to solve many of the issues of Bitcoin without a central authority, and that was not going to happen for obvious reasons.
As soon as it claimed to be money, then it was all about the money. If you look at early BitcoinTalk, you'll see a pile of scams that are extremely similar to the jargon still used in crypto to this day - the scammers got in very early indeed.
I hear that darknet markets tend to use cryptocoins. Which while probably mostly illegal, isn't a Ponzi scheme and isn't (necessarily, depending on what's being sold) fraud.
Only if you have a wildly incorrect view of what a blockchain is.
Merkle trees are part of a blockchain, but they are not blockchains on their own. What you’re missing here is that blockchains also include something to determine which branch is the correct one, to protect against double spend attacks. This is why “blockchain” gets a different name rather than just being called Merkle trees.
I'm pretty sure that if I posted a fork of Linux somewhere, approximately everyone would know that it's not the correct one.
I thought that Monero at least served some purpose as a currency even if it goes against the wishes of some countries' governments. The fact that there are people that talk down cryptocurrencies that are actually being used as a currency really put things into perspective.
It's just multi level marketing schemes all the way down.
Amusingly enough the darknet use of crypto may only be possible because of the Ponzi-beginnings. Criminals are unlikely to accept Pokémons as currency until after they see others doing it.
The actual interesting and novel thing about crypto-coins was solving the "trust problem" of a distributed ledger. But this solution, to be honest, is quite clumsy: PoW. But nobody ever found a better solution until now. Any other proposal is kind of centralized somewhere.
The question that needs to be asked is now "Do we really want, or even need, a fully decentralized 'value moving system'"?
In a world where you could ultimately trust someone else the answer would be clearly "no".
But when there is on thing to learn about humans than it's "never ever trust someone ultimately as you're going to be scammed by those people eventually". Just look at what government do around the globe…
As long as this fact doesn't change (and it won't change until we create a new species of intelligent beings, better than us) there will be room for something like BitCoin. And as those are distributed systems there even doesn't need to be any agreement on that point.
And then there is what we do know about what happens in practice:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/majority-of-bitcoin-trading-...
https://www.theregister.com/2018/11/30/blockchain_study_find...
"We found a proliferation of press releases, white papers, and persuasively written articles," Burg et al wrote on Thursday. "However, we found no documentation or evidence of the results blockchain was purported to have achieved in these claims. We also did not find lessons learned or practical insights, as are available for other technologies in development."
https://theintercept.com/2021/03/24/andrew-cuomo-covid-ibm-b...
"Blockchains are typically public, their contents transparent to anyone with an internet connection, but the one behind Excelsior Pass will be private, meaning only parties sanctioned by IBM will be able to check the contents."
But the blockchain is the protocol for updating the information where other players aren't trusted. As soon as any "party" can be "sanctioned to be able" there's just no need for blockchain at all. It's just selling of snake oil, and yes, IBM is indeed doing it.
Now who'd expect that? The technology company uses the hyped technologies to sell their services and products, even if the said technologies don't make the products any better?
Of course, blockchain promoters would tell you that "there will be something else, comes Really Soon (tm) which won't use "proof of work"."
One can more efficiently use public key cryptography, hashing and signing without the blockchain for any other problem than "implementing bitcoin."
The problem is that delivering AR with enough fidelity to fool the eye is capital-H Hard. Michael Abrash had a good series of blog posts on this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science) An old algorithm used for sharding big-data databases.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(algorithm) A simplified version of paxos.
http://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/home/papers/losa:stellar-ins... The new paper about SCP which allows replication with subjective notions of trust (no central participant-stake list like paxos/raft).
ps: actually i remove "chained" from the idea. If you want to keep the whole authenticated linked-list thing and do it right you'll end up somewhere near https://irmin.org/ (a generalization of git), which is very useful, but doesn't tackle the "strong decentralized commit". You'll probably want to either centrally manage the "lastest-hash(s)" (like git is usually done), or pair it with a state-machine replication protocol. In that last case it may seem useless to use the chained thing if you already have a real replication protocol, but it is much like using public-key crypto for encrypting small ephemeral symmetric keys and encrypting actual data with symmetric crypto: it's an optimization.
Of course, PoS like Ethereum's takes much inspiration from byzantine paxos. But I wouldn't call this a solve problem, and crypto has innovated in this space. We can just debate whether or not the innovation has been worthwhile ;).
So... like git?
And that algorithm is indeed novel! It also has a lot of drawbacks that ultimately makes the whole system not worth the trouble.
This is gold, I'm gonna steal it
Cryptocurrency seems like that for endless numbers of tech nerds. It’s even worse than the impossible shape they were going to use on the Borg since it plugs right into humanity’s biggest cognitive vulnerability: gambling.
Maybe it’s a weapon sent by aliens to make halt our technological progress. 25 years from now cryptocurrency will have soaked up all surplus capital and locked it into a Ponzi and all our best minds will be churning out increasingly Byzantine coin hacks. Then the hypervelocity impactors start arriving…
Curious what you landed on, though.
The NFTs that just point to a painting or a youtube video, I don't think so. They don't do anything and I don't think owning them will be valuable.
The NFTs of, like, NBA clips I can sort of understand as digital trading cards. Being purely digital I think they're inferior to the baseball cards I collected as a kid, but I can kinda see it. But 1) they don't need a blockchain; a public database would probably work better for everyone and 2) I don't think sports trading cards are generally a good investment.
There's something maybe interesting in the "creator economy" angle where like a new podcaster auctions off NFTs of the episodes to early fans, who then become invested in its success. If the show takes off, newly minted NFTs will go for more and more money benefitting the creator and the secondary market will appreciate for early supporters. To be clear, I don't think this is actually a good idea for a lot of reasons... but it's interesting.
All the games and pets and racehorses seem like junk.
Like, sure, NFTs hypothetically make it so that ownership of Top Shots can persist regardless of whether the company that operates it survives. But would the actual Flow blockchain survive the demise of Dapper Labs? I kind of doubt it. And where would the Top Shots I supposedly own continue to be hosted? It's effectively just a centralized marketplace.
I've tried to think about what would truly be unique and interesting about decentralized NFTs, and to me, they make sense if they hold credibility independent of any producer. So, something like a tradable auth role that is respected in many spaces. Kind of like an identity, except that I think the concept of a role makes a bit more sense as something that people can trade. Consider it to be like an event ticket that is respected in an entire ecosystem of different companies.
To me, that's where it starts to enable something that's unlike what's existed before, but it's still hard for me to imagine a real use case. And that's core of the problem of the crypto world: the technology solves problems that don't map on to existing B2B or B2C services. It's literally a solution in search of a problem.
They don't confer copyright or licensing or anything at all other than a URL. This means it would be illegal to build a site that displays such content, and it would get instantly DMCA'd into oblivion.
My issuing an NFT of the Mona Lisa is basically me grabbing a museum map from the Louvre, circling the Mona Lisa on it, signing my name, then selling that map to you for big money. The map doesn't given you a license to display the Mona Lisa. It's just a set of instructions re: how to find it alongside my signature. If they move the painting to a new location, it gets stolen, destroyed, or the Louvre is shut down - well, tough. And anyone can do it, with any map of the Louvre.
> Consider it to be like an event ticket that is respected in an entire ecosystem of different companies.
Event tickets have one issuer and one point of redemption. Generally, Ticketmaster is on both sides (they own the issuance via Ticketmaster and they own the redemption side - the venues - via Live Nation). It's not in their interest as a business to relinquish even the tinies bit of control.
Agreed on the unlikelihood of NFTs supplanting event tickets. I'm just speculating on the type of novel product/ecosystem the technology enables. But building a compelling experience around this concept is a whole other challenge. It remains to be seen whether someone eventually does. Even if that happens, it doesn't mean we're talking about an entire new market of significance.
I guess I'd just say absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, when it comes to the utility, but a level of outside-the-box thinking is required that no one's motivated to do when you can simply mint NFTs of URLs and sell them for absurd sums of money.
Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.
No. Copyright must be explicitly assigned.
> Also, consider that in NFTs, the only one selling an NFT to the Mona Lisa is Leonardo.
Nah anyone can do it any time.
No one is talking about assigning copyright. The question is about a license to display the content on a website. I am fairly certain you have heard of non-verbal contracts before. For example, here is what the UK government has to say about an implied copyright license:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/license-sell-or-market-your-copy...
> Nah anyone can do it any time.
Anyone can also sell a signature of Clooney. And yet no one does, nor would anyone buy it. This is not something that plays into a serious analysis of the NFT space, and so I am not sure why you would want to find it interesting to talk about.
Agreed that the artificial scarcity is a tell that there's not a particularly impressive amount of innovation.
Sologenic DEX [1] is an modern UI for a DEX to trade. Cutting out the middlemen was once a key point of p2p and decentral systems. It was kinda lost with all the non tech savvy people storming the crypto space.
[1] https://www.sologenic.com/ecosystem/sologenic-decentralized-... (The DEX runs on the XRPL, Manticore Securities AS(the company behind sologenic) has no control over it)
What do you mean by saying people fell for "this"? I assume you mean it's a scam but I will wait for your reply.
For a payments system, the fact that all transactions are final is pretty bad. I'd say this, by itself, makes the system unusable in the real world.
That a transaction is final is not a flaw but one of the main features.
I don't use dispute resolution unless someone actually stole my credit card number like when my card info was jacked at a gas pump one time. Credit cards are quite insecure and we still have to type in all our personal info online every single transaction which is dangerous and dumb and makes the whole system vulnerable to credit card fraud in a way that crypto isn't. When you use crypto you simply sign a transaction message, you don't have to give away your private keys to make the transaction occur.
That's just what humans do to each other. New tech is always like this when there are gains to be made.
Some folks look at the trend that central banks have been on and the creep of financial surveillance and think purposefully going backward in some areas isn't silly at all.
In the end, it's software you don't have to use. Nobody is forcing anyone to opt in, right (you know, like the credit bureaus who in America force you to opt in if you intend to... I dunno, participate in the economy in a meaningful way)?
Second, adoption is way up and btc is only one cryptocurrency. It gets first-mover advantage in this market (unfairly, probably) and so continues to be a bellwether despite the fact that it is a relative dinosaur, technology wise. I'm fine with that, personally, despite the problems with the technology.
That you haven't adopted the tech doesn't mean that adoption is failing, you know. There are more users every year (this is difficult to pin down for obvious & good reasons, but the indicators are solid) and no technology with millions of users globally, including institutional adopters, can be said to be failing.
Further, to call any payments technology 'mildly popular' which safeguards USD 1.5-2.5 trillion (total cryptocurrency market cap, BTC accounting for over 760 billion alone, despite the recent corrections) in deflationary wealth undermines your argument to the point of bad faith. Is the cryptocurrency market overheated and full of nonsense? Of course. But let's do the analyses with level heads at least.
Humans have been using credit systems for millennia. The implication that in the olden days people only walked around with bits of gold in their pockets is a bit of “retconning.”
This article includes some interesting tidbits: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/the-invention-...
Paper currency is a couple millenia older than the printing press, using woodlblock printing.
If we're talking specifically about credit cards, the credit card went from new invention to ubiquity in a couple of decades. But I think that's too narrow a scope to look at, to be honest.
Early credit systems did not depend upon the printing press; think of the widespread use of tally sticks in medieval Europe to enable illiterate low-technology credit systems.
It's really hard to approach this anthropologically, IMO, because so many other variables change. Less complex economies do fine with "local communism" and person-to-person debt, but it's hard to imagine using such a thing to order from Amazon. Conversely, coinage historically was useful if you had to exchange with someone with whom you didn't have a personal relationship (say, you're traveling to a faraway land and you can't just provide an IOU), but that's somewhat obsolete now.
I guess my conclusion would be that these historical analogies don't shed a lot of light.
https://www.amazon.com/History-Money-Jack-Weatherford/dp/060...
In Europe credit cards are not very common, and debit card transactions are often not reversible.
A generalisation like this is no better than the frequent occurrence of HNers posting articles headlined with "the nation" which mean "the USA".
Anyone who has worked with payment processing can tell you how rare debit card chargebacks are, this is because they’re usually vastly more difficult.
And no, your comment on Ethereum is about 4 years outdated.
The fundamental issue is that creating scalable, cheap credit infrastructure for mass economic activity is fundamentally in opposition with creating an investment that will continually gain in value. You see this really clearly in Ethereum, where’s gas fees can be exceptionally high compared to traditional financial institutions.
Or https://compound.finance/ also a great project.
Ethereum's gas fees have nothing to do with the price of the base asset: it has to do with limited block size availability. When the network is congested, block size is limited and this causes transactions to be bid up in an auction format to get in first.
This is one of the costs of decentralization. However, recent advances in Zero Knowledge Proof cryptography has paved a path for Ethereum to take to get to VISA scale and beyond and be able to process 200K transactions per second (at pennies or less per tx): see https://zksync.io/ and https://starkware.co/.
There are already a large number of crypto projects partnering with existing businesses to address real problems. I don't see a minority ideology standing in the way of this.
Here's various businesses running oracles for smart contracts including Deutsch Telecom: https://chain.link/ecosystem/data-providers
Here's Ernst & Young's take on the technology: https://www.ey.com/en_us/blockchain
They are not. They're offering a pre-paid card that users can top up with their crypto.com wallets. [1]
The Crypto.com Visa Card is a prepaid card. Broadly speaking, prepaid cards are the same as debit cards. The difference is that debit cards are linked to your bank account, but prepaid cards need to be topped up. In our case, you can top up using bank account transfers, other credit/debit cards, or cryptocurrency.
And Deutsch Telecom isn't using a blockchain either. They're selling data to a company that then puts the data on a blockchain. That's not using a blockchain.
And Visa clearly said: that Anchorage will be its “digital asset settlement agent” and that it will “integrate [its] treasury systems with Anchorage.”
“After further testing and additional conversations with clients, partners and members of the regulatory community, we hope to launch this capability for other partners in the year ahead,” Visa said in a blog post about the news.
Read it from their official press release, a couple times: https://usa.visa.com/about-visa/newsroom/press-releases.rele...
Multisig escrow is also better in every way if people want to involve a third party in case of a dispute
SWIFT international wires do cost the DI more, but not several orders of magnitude more. I don't happen to know that number off hand.
Some retail banks charge a lot for wires because they can - people don't use them frequently (as to your point its not what people want most of the time) and usually only for bigger purchases so the fee matters less.
However, if this is something you do more often, banks offer steep, steep discounts over sticker.
And BTW no we dont need bitcoin for this at all its depreciated tech. But other DLT can be very usefully. There is a reason CBDCs are a huge topic in global finance.
With technology getting faster, I regret not mining a few coins.
I even bought the sound cards?
A life if regrets because I didn't follow my gut feelings, or let people sway my decisions?
(Would I invest in Bitcoin now. Hell no, but years ago yes. It will deflate, along with NTF's, and the stock market soon.)
Not be able to reverse transaction is not a feature, it's a fundamental flaw. There is absolutely no advantage to the consumer or the producer to have all transactions immediately permanent.
The rest of your comment reveals your bias: You don't really care about it working technologically, you just wish you had made money on it.
The slow transition away from “mass adoption soon!” is extremely entertaining to me.
Why, pray tell, for a currency would developers matter more than end users?
Many people are certainly buying in to crypto with the intent of selling it later at a profit. But that’s unrelated from its utility.
Usage as in number of network participants. People investing time, energy, risk into the system. Miners, traders, validators, second layer operators. Similar to members of facebook, servers in the internet. Price as in market price. And I'm only talking Bitcoin here.
It'd be like if the number of Facebook accounts kept rising, but hardly anyone posts content anymore. If I were a Facebook investor, that would worry me.
First I've heard of this. Do you have more information?
And the idea that miners have a god-given right to make $100 per transaction, $40m per day, and therefore if the mining reward halves, the price of BTC must inevitably double, is obviously preposterous.
Note, not speculation in Bitcoin, usage of it as an actual currency.
I agree with you. Both versions of this argument have to stop in favor of actual discussion (which, it seems, there is a good amount of in this thread)
Most technology companies should hold it on their balance sheets and employ a contributor.
Complaining about nothing to do on Bitcoin feels like complaining how empty the gopher server are after everyone’s moved onto the web.
The reason is that blockchain can only offer its trustless, decentralized and permissionless guarantees to things that are wholly representable on-chain. As soon as you try and sync it with the real world, the real world is the source of truth and the chain representation is meaningless.
Further, by boat anchoring solutions to the fundamental inefficiencies of blockchain, you leave your chain solutions at a material disadvantage to centralized, permissioned solutions anyways. This creates huge adverse selection bias, leaving only the criminals and scammers using it.
Concrete example: Sia has 800TB of storage - total! - in spite of an $800M market cap and millions spent on R&D. You could achieve the same result with a half of a 1U rack of hard drives and $40,000 - or a few bucks on AWS. Why? Because why on earth would anyone use it?
On the other hand, Chia has 1.5 exabytes of wasted hard drive capacity loaded up with bingo cards lol.
This is crypto.
DeFi is particularly fun, it's basically just decentralized 2008, a way to extend way too much leverage to people who simply should not have it, in exchange for fanciful 3-digit percentage APR to lenders.
It's all a damn mess.
I think what's being lost in this discussion, since almost no one posting here is either passingly familiar with the past decade of crypto-economic research, or with the current state of the art in "crypto" technology (almost none of which revolves around or even involves Bitcoin these days). Almost all of the promising new networks provide at least 1000X transaction throughput at 1000X+ transaction efficiency while retaining decent Nakamoto coefficients and allowing some level of computation ("smart contract") and composability. (Yes there is also plenty of useless stupid stuff that sadly is a huge waste of resources, but hey, we survived Dotcom Bubble. It's just part of the process.)
I don't begrudge anyone who doesn't see the potential there, just as I don't worry about anyone who might have said that the Internet's impact would be no greater than the fax machine (in fact, a single Nobel laureate chimed in early on to both of these sentiments) - whether this turns out to be true will depend largely on the people who choose to build their vision and prove people wrong... or not.
Also, there's no question it's all a damn mess, but much more broadly than crypto.
It solves a technical problem - the byzantine generals problem - but does it solve a problem people have? I don’t know anyone who’s had the Byzantine generals problem personally.
Having said all that, I still can't figure out what the hell to do in the DeFi world. It seems like all I can do is lend my assets to people who also have nothing to do besides speculate or themselves lend their assets to other speculators. I can't figure out anything to do that pushes out of the speculative bubble in any way. Maybe you can help me?
You can read some of their public reports here: https://blog.chainalysis.com/?tab=articles-tab
Bitcoin by design only has a fixed number of coins available, eventually the miners will have mined them all. It has the same limitation that gold has and basing an economy on it will stunt its growth.
A counter-position from the Austrian/Chicago school is that supercharging growth drives malinvestment, and they can't be entirely wrong about that - I've seen tons of dumb money flow into dodgy companies during tech booms.
Inflation incentivizes investment because you are going to lose 2% per annum if you don't.
Fiat offers you the maximum flexibility because you can back your personal economy any way you want - if you want to back it with gold, just buy some. If you want to back it with crypto, bless your heart, buy some.
This is a false narrative.
Wealth is a verb, not a noun. The wealth of nations is measured in how much they do, not how much they have.
The US arguably defeated the USSR via looser monetary policy. China is now doing the same to the US.
Interest rates are low because everyone is saving, nobody is borrowing, nobody is investing.
Bitcoin is limited by the block size and the lack of working L2 solutions (lightning is permanently broken).
But other currencies, like BCH don't have that problem, and can easily represent the whole US economy.
You might have difficulty measuring out two atoms of gold to change hands, but that's dwarfed by the difficulty in measuring out two Satoshis - given that they aren't a physical thing at all. So, if you can keep track of it with Satoshis, why couldn't you keep track of it with gold atoms?
That is, if your position is "Bitcoin isn't limited like gold because of Satoshis" then the same argument works equally well for gold with atoms, doesn't it?
That is, gold can't represent the entire economy because nobody would pay so much for a gram of gold, but why would they then pay that much for a quanity of the even less physical Bitcoin?
90% of all bitcoin ever have already been mined. If your solution to the limited number of bitcoins is rampant deflation you probably don't have a viable currency
A small amount of inflation is an incentive to find productive uses for capital. Deflation rewards a kind of rentier class who own capital but don't do anything with it.
Yet, people keep buying computers. Why?
I would argue deflation has been the most significant driver of the IT industry in the last 30 years and in turn has been one of the greatest drivers of prosperity in that same period. As computers become cheaper, more people can afford more them and more value is added to society.
On the other side you have inflation that kills savings. And since most people save with a goal in mind, not because it's fun and exciting, the higher the inflation, the longer they will have to save before they reach that goal.
The majority of wealth is owned by the top 5%. Are they really spending a significant fraction of that wealth on computers? Deflation is never about what people buy, it's what they keep.
>I would argue deflation has been the most significant driver of the IT industry in the last 30 years
No it hasn't. The IT sector drives deflation and there is nothing wrong with productivity improvements. You just got cause and effect backwards.
>and in turn has been one of the greatest drivers of prosperity in that same period. As computers become cheaper, more people can afford more them and more value is added to society.
Inflation increases future incomes. If computers cost the same but you get higher salaries that's a good thing.
Deflation is good. Every wage earner becomes more wealthy as their rate of pay buys more. Sticky wages arent a problem with deflationary money. Hell, at least half the complaints about the modern economy are the result of inflation. But, no, deflation would utterly destroy the economy.
If you want to change the amount of wealth low-income earners have, stop focusing on the units. This is not JPow's fault, it's a job for congress - it's social and fiscal policy not monetary policy. This is just a quixotic quest against the wrong opponent.
If you want to help low-income folks, advocate for unions (so labor can push back against capital), advocate for wealth taxes, higher marginal taxes for the rich, minimum wage indexed to inflation, a strong social safety net and national zoning laws to stop metros from preventing adding enough housing supply to meet demand. Things that would help.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/10/09/measured-in...
The author suggests you cannot measure inflation except by dividing by the spot price of gold. This is false, and why we have the CPI.
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/07/for-most-us...
You will get wage cuts because it becomes harder to employ you at your currency salary or you just get fired. If you can't find a job, deflation will have made your life a lot worse. You are also incentivized to stick with your first job because future jobs will pay less than past jobs. Basically you hope you build a stash of cash in your 20s because your potential to earn money shrinks with every single year but your wealth gains in value from doing nothing.
We are running into that problem with Bitcoin and land. Do you really think that if you signed a contract to get paid 10 BTC per year in 2017 (when it was $20k) that you will still get 10 BTC today? (at $38k). No, you will get 5 BTC this year.
>Hell, at least half the complaints about the modern economy are the result of inflation
Pretty much all of the complaints about the modern economy are about inadequate attempts to fight off deflation. The Fed has reached a point where it cannot do anything to fight off deflation, it takes a pandemic to fight off deflation, that's how bad the situation is.
Just take a look at Japan, they have deflation and nobody is jealous of their economy.
Income is not the same as wealth. Savers become wealthier, debtors (such as anyone with a mortgage) lose wealth.
> Sticky wages arent a problem with deflationary money.
Um, what? Your last sentence was all about how deflationary money guarantees wage earners increasing pay in real terms. That makes the sticky wages problem much worse.
At the moment our economies grow because we can print more money ... and of course most national/reserve banks are careful to not print so much currency that inflation becomes an issue, just enough to cover the economic growth.
Gold didn’t have a rep as the hub of black market transactions before bitcoin.
I’d put that deflationary crash right at the point you mention. I remember it. Bitcoin ran up to crazy levels in 2017 while it was simultaneously abandoned, which is what a deflationary currency collapse looks like.
Bitcoin’s designer(s) were brilliant cryptographers but crank economists. There’s a reason nobody takes that kind of superficial pop Austrianism seriously. It would be possible to design a viable cryptocurrency but it won’t happen until the current crop of cranks and scammers goes away. Right now anything actually workable in the space is tainted by the nonsense.
Bitcoin "regressed" (really, specialized) because it got so big that it became speculators' favorite, which made it too expensive for anyone but speculators to interact with. Then, other cryptocurrencies that aren't so expensive to move around were created, and people who wanted to use cryptocurrency as a medium of exchange moved to using those instead. So now the ecosystem supports two applications (investment, exchange) using different tools specialized to those purposes, each better at that thing than a single cryptocurrency trying to "do it all" would be.
Which is, y'know, also the story of the Internet.
I have bought a lot of pizzas with BTC (and other cryptocurrencies), as the local food ordering platform accepts it. Worked grear, but at some point the crypto payment processor started requiring KYC. I'm not gonna upload my passport to pay for pizza. I dont know if this problem is because of crypto or excessive regulation.
If I wanted to be more optimistic I would look at the level of adoption today as insane compared to 5y ago.
And, yeah, 13 years after the internet's invention was 01982; not only couldn't you get so much as a weather report online, much less IRC, but many of the early interesting experiments like NLS at SRI had shut down, and more and more places were disabling guest access to their hosts — you couldn't run so much as a game of ADVENT without getting a username. And a password. Things were seriously regressing. The only people you could talk to on the internet were other people who really bought into the subculture, of which there were a few tens of thousands.
So why does Bitcoin have tens of millions of users 13 years after its inception, instead of only tens of thousands like the internet?
If you live in a country with a highly functional banking system and no kleptocracy, Bitcoin is probably a bit puzzling unless you have family in Cuba. But it’s not puzzling at all for those of us who live somewhere in the middle of the broad spectrum between Switzerland and Somalia, because most places have a little kleptocracy. Argentina is a stable democracy, far from being “a failed state,”† but if you want to send US$500 abroad via non-Bitcoin means it’s basically impossible, and the only broadly available savings vehicle is real estate (“ahorrar en ladrillos”), which of course grossly inflates real-estate prices, with a substantial part of the capital city occupied by empty apartments someone bought “as an investment”. Historically, Argentines have saved by buying dollars, but that’s limited to US$200 a month now, and then only if you have a non-under-the-table job (about a third of total employment is under the table):
https://www.ambito.com/finanzas/dolares/cronologia-del-cepo-...
You can see that in September 02019 when this measure was imposed the price of a dollar was AR$63.50; now it’s AR$155. So whatever savings you had in pesos in 02019 have lost 59% of their value to peso devaluation.
In 02001 a lot of Argentines had saved dollars in their dollar-denominated bank accounts. This did not preserve their savings through the financial crisis that year; the cash-strapped government limited withdrawals to a trickle, then converted dollar deposits to pesos at a one-to-one rate, then released the exchange-rate peg, at which point peso went overnight from being worth US$1 to being worth US$0.25 before settling at about US$0.31 for the next few years. The US did something similar in 01933.
Some might suggest using “alternatives to banks like credit unions where customers—as owners—hold more power,” but Credicoop depositors suffered the same two-thirds confiscation of savings as depositors in for-profit banks. And they pay the same 3% tax on bank transactions including checks. That’s more than a fast Bitcoin transaction fee of US$15 for transactions over US$500.
But we’re not a failed state. There are no gangs of bandits roving the streets in Argentine cities (though there are some pretty bad slums where you’ll get robbed if you wander in without knowing anybody). Courts, free public hospitals, and roads continue to function, though there are more potholes than a year ago. Argentine infant mortality is 10 per 1000 live births, down from almost 20 in the late 01990s and the same as the late 01980s in the US; life expectancy at birth is 77 years, worse than Switzerland’s 84, but the same as China and Hungary, and better than Saudi or Mexico. (Somalia is 54.)
Most of the world is worse off than Argentina, although not necessarily in such a statistically transparent fashion. About one fourth of the people in the world are unbanked, 51% here in Argentina; even advanced countries like Russia, Hungary, and Uruguay have roughly a quarter of the population unbanked:
https://www.gfmag.com/global-data/economic-data/worlds-most-...
And if your family lives in a country like Iran or Venezuela subject to US sanctions, and you live in the US? Good luck sending them an ACH, instant or otherwise!‡ It’s well known that Bitcoin is very popular in Venezuela, which kind of is a failed state, so one of the Venezuelan governments is trying to tax Bitcoin remittances at 15%.
Bitcoin handles a few billion dollars per year in such remittances. This might seem like a trivial amount of money to someone in a rich country, but in poor countries, it’s enough to keep several million people alive.
Even in the US, it’s common for the police to confiscate large amounts of paper currency just because they can (“civil forfeiture”); US bank accounts are probably fine for US$100K but probably somewhat risky for US$10M if the bank thinks you don’t seem like the kind of person who ought to have it. US$10M in US$100 bills fits in a box you can wheel around on a dolly, but Bitcoin is a lot more practical. (And of course US$10M in dollar bills loses about US$200k per year to inflation.)
Transaction fees are usually high enough that you wouldn’t want to use Bitcoin to pay for a can of Red Bull or even a restaurant dinner. But it’s extremely practical as an alternative to Western Union or US$100 bills or gold, even with the current very high transaction fees. At the moment, the Bitcoin transaction fee is very low—the median Bitcoin transaction fee in the last block was 0.00678 millibitcoins, which is US$0.25:
https://btc.com/0000000000000000000778ef382c1697706e34634696...
Three months ago it was at what I think of as a more normal rate of 0.31 millibitcoins, US$11, which is lower than the 3.4% spread you’d pay to a jeweler or black-market money changer for transactions over US$350:
https://btc.com/00000000000000000000476ab57eea9be8ada36e2680...
So, Bitcoin doesn’t have to be a cypherpunk utopia to be a big improvement on the status quo ante. For those of you living in stable countries where your worries are things like “instant and extremely low-fee ACHs” and “decentralized utopia”, this may be very confusing, but try to remember that most of the world lives in places with much more pressing concerns, concerns that Bitcoin helps a lot with. And you may live there too, soon—the loyal subjects of Kaiser Wilhelm in 01913 certainly didn’t expect that in 15 years they’d be in the middle of a hyperinflation episode that remains legendary a century later.
I think that, by providing workarounds to the people who need them, cryptocurrencies probably not only ameliorate the most immediate and pressing concerns of poor parts of the population like Venezuelan immigrants, but probably also adjust the power balance in a more liberal and democratic direction. This will improve the chance of those concerns being ameliorated by public policy over the next decades as well. But it's hard to tell what will really happen. The potential disaster scenario is that, by making most taxation impossible, cryptocurrencies destroy the modern welfare state without providing anything to replace it. So the public hospitals close, the enormous police force starts to support itself by extracting tribute, and the infrastructure decays. Pretty similar to what's happened in the US over the last 50 years, in fact, only more so.
However, at this point I think the modern welfare state is already doing a good enough job of destroying itself without any significant help from cryptocurrencies—as evidence, I can point to Maduro, Macri, Bolsonaro, Trump, and Brexit, and metonymically to the social changes they betoken. So at this point I'm more worried about cushioning the collapse than preventing it.
(I posted an earlier version of this a couple of months ago at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26654767.)
____
† We’ve remained democratic since 01983, electing presidents from three different political parties (UCR, PJ, and PRO), and there’s no serious insurgency. It’s the economy and government policy that are ruinously unstable, to a point that seems satirical to anyone accustomed to the US, but is lamentably common worldwide. Rich people sometimes say they don't know of legitimate uses of Bitcoin outside of “failed states”.
‡ Family remittances are specifically exempted from the US sanctions on Iran, but good luck finding a US bank that’s willing and able to take that risk: https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/26580_advi...
Safeguarding hard physical cash is something most everyone, old and young, technically literate or technically illiterate, poor or rich, intrinsically knows how to do. And when it is stolen or lost, there are viable approaches to pursue with favorable probabilities of a happy resolution: tell a police cop to see if they can catch the thief using detective work, you could try looking around if you think you might have misplaced it, etc.
With BTC on the other hand, ensuring your wallet isn't had by committed and technically proficient bad-actors or that your wealth isn't all erased in the blink of an eye with a hdd crash or a distressed acquaintance wiping your data away, you can't expect normal people to be up to the task of combatting all of this. And retrieving stolen BTCs from bad-actors living a continent away is a task that police cops are not up to doing or even the slightest bit capable of. You are a really smart guy kragen, I'm sure you won't forget your computer's password one day or have your wallet compromised, but someone like my mom or grandma would, and the thought that simple mistakes and viruses and computer illiteracy could and probably would be the thing that leaves someone's wealth irretrievably erased without much avenue of recourse saddens me, and makes me wish that people in our profession who understand this would stop encouraging its usage.
I come from a nation that ranks lower than Argentina in stability. My family went through this very dance of receiving money from abroad and having to go to WU to get it. The risk of a bad accident happening is infinitesimally small in that than with BTC.
With either banks or Bitcoin, you can hedge your risks by converting to fiat currencies. But with fiat currencies, you can hedge your risk by converting (partly) to Bitcoin.
So maybe you should buy your grandma a Trezor. What country does she live in?
In comparison to getting your wallet compromised by viruses searching for it (and they will probably become more aggressive and adept as BTC usage increases), the chance of this happening I feel is exceedingly low. And avenues of recourse exist: there are clear leads to follow on for an investigative team.
> I've had my bank ATM card cloned by a skimmer on an ATM while I was traveling overseas
I know that my credit card covers me for this and I would get my money back if such a thing were to happen to me.
> I've had WU give me ridiculously unfavorable exchange rates, and there was nothing I could do about it
And BTC transaction fees are ever-increasing. And so is its environmental cost.
My grandma lives in .pk. I fear she would not be capable of understanding the concept of BTC or Trezor as she can barely understand how a TV remote works. She does very much grok the concept of cash money though, and is quite fond of exercising her freedom with it.
The second time, I explained it, they didn't get it. The third time, I sat them down, and made them learn how to run full nodes, run a few commands on the command line, and use bitcoin. Western Union is certainly not guaranteed, nor tyranny proof. If the governments of Argentina or Pakistan need the USD bad enough, they will every dollar Western Union is holding for recipients. To keep the story quiet and the money flowing in, they may imprison the recipients and their families. Desperate times call for desperate measures.
But that money isn't free, you may for it through higher merchant fees and lower bank interest rates.
Currency controls are actually preventing the recovery of the country. They are a short term fix for a short term problem but they create long term problems in the process and those long term problems are definitively the worse poison.
I've already addressed your point about governmental change.
The reality is that it's just another means for the wealthy (and criminals) to evade currency controls.
How do you turn your Bitcoin into food, housing, utilities, and other necessities?
> And, yeah, 13 years after the internet's invention was 01982
The Internet was not available to virtually anyone in 1982 much less 1969. Nor was the ARPANET of 1969 even remotely similar to the Internet. TCP came about in 1974. IPv4 in 1982.
> So why does Bitcoin have tens of millions of users
It doesn't. It has a lot of speculators, and a handful of users. And no one knows or could possibly know how many there are.
etc.
I sell it for dollars to people in person; some of the dollars I have to change into Argentine pesos before I can spend them. Isn't that how everybody does it?
> The Internet was not available to virtually anyone in 1982 much less 1969
It was available to almost anyone who knew someone who had access, which is the same situation as Bitcoin. Precisely what Maciej is complaining about is that so little of the economy is hooked up to Bitcoin is that most of us can't buy a pizza with it without going through intermediaries.
> Nor was the ARPANET of 1969 even remotely similar to the Internet
It was remotely similar; it provided telnet over a packet-switched network, with routing. You could argue that substantial technical changes happened in Bitcoin over the last 13 years, too. Maciej did, in fact, make that argument: he pointed out in particular the dramatic shift to centralized intermediaries like Coinbase (the ANS.NET of Bitcoin?) and from CPU mining to GPU, FPGA, and then ASIC mining, as well as the proliferation of alternative cryptocurrencies. We could also mention segwit, the BCH schism, Lightning, BIP39 and Electrum seed phrases, and lightweight clients like Electrum. Those changes are not over yet. So the situations are in fact quite closely parallel.
No, most people just spend their currency directly on the things they need to purchase, actually.
> It was available to almost anyone who knew someone who had access
That's not even remotely true, and is also a tiny number of people.
> It was remotely similar
But... it wasn't. As I already have shown.
The ARPANET, then the Internet, have all gone through steady evolution. It has not spent 13 years stagnant or regressing in terms of either design or use.
Just because you read somewhere that "ARPANET was the predecessor of the Internet" does not mean that ARPANET was the Internet.
If you care to see, it’s in my comment history not long ago. And the thread is fascinating because at best the replies just cherry pick and do semantic tricks like this.
Crypto has a wealth of interesting uses. Tech company co-ops, incentivizing content curation, new and organic stock distribution mechanisms for open source projects, and of course the giant one of providing a far better investment and transfer vehicle to the non-first world countries.
I mean, I can totally see the arguments that it is wasteful, or a bubble, overhyped, and not reaching its potential. But the ones who say it has no or next to no uses are in my opinion on the same plane as Krugmans “the internet will be less useful than the fax machine” or the classic Slashdot iPod “less space than a nomad” comment. It may take even 20 years to prove it, IMO that’s not unreasonable, but it will be claim chowder I’ll be happy to revisit.
If proof of stake works out, there’s no doubt the next Google will be a crypto company that gives revenue back to the user base to incentive good contribution. Content sites absolutely will be totally disrupted. Well look back at writing reviews for the Yelps and Googles as being anachronistic, “why did we used to give all this content to the largest company in the world for free”. Instead, a crypto-based Yelp or Reddit that used a coin and distributed it fairly in relation to contribution would absolutely blow up.
I think VC is also better done with coins in general. Take any traditional tech company that has nothing to do with crypto and just change one thing: instead of paying early adopters who help the platform grow $150 bucks, which is nothing, pay them in what is essentially a micro-dose of stock. That’s a 10x more incentivized early adopter because they actually could make something more than lunch money.
The reason crypto is blowing up isn’t because it’s a ponzo scheme. It’s because laws around accredited investing are truly the most egregiously disgusting instantiation of class warfare ever to exist, and finally small guys have a chance to do what the wealthy have been doing since forever: take their extra money and invest it. All the “pure” crypto companies are total bullshit, minus many BTC and ETH, because they have no product. That I agree with. But in time you’ll see a huge growth in companies that are simply normal tech companies with novel tech/uses, but who build in community ownership, rewards and incentives that actually share profit with their user base.
Again: why do people not get paid for contributions to Pinterest, Yelp, Reddit? These are companies paying millions of dollars to employees, and 100% of their content is given to them by users. In a better world they are actually run by the community, owned by the community, and developed in the open.
Any company could do this with fiat currency today. "Crypto" has nothing to do with it.
> Take any traditional tech company that has nothing to do with crypto and just change one thing: instead of paying early adopters who help the platform grow $150 bucks, which is nothing, pay them in what is essentially a micro-dose of stock.
Likewise, there is nothing stopping a company doing this today without "crypto".
> finally small guys have a chance to do what the wealthy have been doing since forever: take their extra money and invest it
You're ignoring the existence of the stock market, index funds, exchange-traded funds, fractional share purchasing, Robinhood no-fee trading, etc.
And your final response is an absolutely perfect example of cherry picking. I said VC, you reply with index funds. Laughable.
This is nonsense. Sure, on a technical level, you can ensure that Google2 will only have 10,000 crypto-shares, and will never issue any more. Regular Google can issue new stock and there's not much that can be done.
But the volume at which public companies or even private companies trade stock is so huge that there's no use case you can imagine that would tank the stock. You're talking about micro-payments -- Google2 is not going to pay people $30 an hour (crypto or USD) to upvote comments or submit useful content. I know this because Google1 barely pays YouTubers (outside of the top x% who make real money, and even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google). Google1 could issue a million new shares of the stock to pay its moderators, and all they'd do is tank the stock price. But all their most valuable employees are paid heavily in stock. They wouldn't be happy and would quit or riot. It's a soft-regulation on that kind of silly behavior.
Despite 20+ years of "pay users to use the site" being an obvious conclusion, almost no site has done this in a meaningful way. There are hardly any even paying people in funny money / company scrip. All I can think of are Eve Online and Steam. You can't convert money OUT (regulations) but you can use their chuck-e-cheese tokens to buy stuff within their business. On Steam, the money you get per value the user puts in is a pittance. Valve takes a 30ish % cut on almost everything you do, even "secondhand" trading card transactions.
You can speculate that financial regulations are preventing it, but I think it's more likely that the owners of Google2 would much prefer to keep as much capital for themselves and not let its users/"staffers" get a slice. Similarly, Google1 pays its low-level moderator staff very little (compared to an engineer or upper level manager). Most corporations turn a profit. That's a very clear indicator of 'money on the table' - money that the owners chose not to return to the people performing labor for the company, whether volunteer or employee.
You imply a kind of 51% governance of an open source or community driven project. History shows that community projects fork all the time over personal differences, and majority does not always rule. Google2 coin won't matter if people get mad at Google2's governance and fork it for Google2.5 coin. If you can't fork the coin, then it sounds like regular stock or company scrip.
https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/18843/how-does-a-p...
> Google2 is not going to pay people $30 an hour (crypto or USD) to upvote comments or submit useful content. I know this because Google1 barely pays YouTubers (outside of the top x% who make real money, and even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google)
Google pays tons of content people, they also have 130 billion in cash.
Google2 may make the mistake of being greedy, but GoogleN may not because they have a team that realizes less greed = users paid more = more incentive. Forking is a feature not a bug.
Success being correlated with fairness in equity distribution, users having stake and say in the platforms they use, creators having contracts with how they earn their living that can’t be changed on a whim, and if they ever do change, it’s by a democratic process, and creators then being able to vote with their feet to fork.
Seems like a good thing.
> even they have ad dollars siphoned off by Google
> That's a very clear indicator of 'money on the table' - money that the owners chose not to return to the people performing labor for the company, whether volunteer or employee.
These are arguments for crypto.
> https://money.stackexchange.com/questions/18843/how-does-a-p...
GoogleN can design the coin/share pool however they want, so I don’t see what the argument is.
Looking at the current front page, seems like a Wikipedia2 would work too https://www.dailydot.com/debug/wikipedia-endownemnt-fundrais...
To be clear, I think these companies need to be non-profit but still pay their team well (a fixed rate to some sort of inflation basket that tracks competitive engineer salaries, for example).
What is unclear to me, is how these remittances work in practice. I get that in the US you can exchange USD to Bitcoin with a credit card and then send that to a person in, say, Venezuela (or share the wallet password). But how is it converted back to Venezuelan Bolivar? I can't imagine you buying a pizza with bitcoin in Caracas.
Side question, why do you write your years with a leading zero? I've never seen that before and it has quite a cognitive strain for me.
One thing I do know is that a lot of overseas Venezuelans whose remittances are via Bitcoin don't know Bitcoin is involved. They know a storefront where people transmit money to Venezuela, and the guy there tells them where to instruct their family members in Venezuela to pick up the money. How the agent in Venezuela gets paid is no concern of the customers; they only care that the money they give the guy arrives safe and sound.
https://news.bitcoin.com/venezuelans-can-now-use-bitcoin-to-...
Not OP, but I had the same question and did a few seconds of cursory searching to no avail. But rather than cognitive strain, I found it opened up a much larger vista on the perception of time and our seeming place in it. While I am unlikely to adopt it, perhaps the experience would be even broader with a few more zeros tacked on! ;-)
That's likely a Long Now reference: https://blog.longnow.org/02013/12/31/long-now-years-five-dig...
I'm from Canada, and moved to Australia. I was moving money from Canada to Australia, it was easier, faster, and cheaper for me to move that money via crypto (I used Eth rather than Bitcoin at the time) than going through the banking system.
The irony with the GP’s post is that I can’t see using Bitcoin, with its current incredibly-high power usage and associated environmental destruction, as long-term thinking in any way, shape or form.
https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actuall...
Now, at some point in the future, Bitcoin might become an environmental problem; the cheapest ways to get energy have been environmentally destructive in the past, and they may be so again. Maybe in 50 years we'll have to campaign against Bitcoin miners who want to convert the mass of Jupiter into energy with their fusion reactors or black-hole clusters. But right now the only places that Bitcoin is causing environmental damage are places where some government has unwisely subsidized fossil-fuel consumption, and Bitcoin itself is what puts an end to those subsidies.
For the forseeable future energy production cannot be carbon-free. All uses of energy, including Bitcoin mining, will continue to impose an environmental cost. For those of us who believe Bitcoin achieves nothing useful that can't be done better some other way, that cost translates into a pure negative.
It doesn't make the argument you have just elucidated, which is an interesting one. I'll think about it.
> Because you judge our lives useless, you engage in motivated reasoning to find excuses to sweep us away,
"Bitcoin not useful" != "your life is useless". I think you have invested rather too much of your identity into Bitcoin.
Regarding "Roca", please check my HN bio. My real name is "Robert O'Callahan" and 'roca' is a handle I've used online since 1990. I have never heard of your "Roca" before.
2) Electricity is one of the few things that are about as fungible as money. All your blithering about how "crypto uses only the most environmentally friendly energy!" is bullpucky, since that only means that some actually useful stuff must now run on other, less environmentally friendly energy.
3) You misspelled "I sincerely apologise for my unfounded and calumnious accusation". Please stop being such an egregious arsehole.
② electricity is fungible, but not portable or storable, and is almost all generated within 200km of its point of use (and well under 10 milliseconds). Also, the supply of electrical power is not fixed; it is rapidly expanding in response to demand. So one use of electricity does not imply less electrical power available even for other things in the same location. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27449443 has a much deeper dive on the issues.
③ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27377190 was posted the day before your unworthy comment.
Yet imagine my perception when I find that someone has popped up here to argue against such safeguards, and he's using the name of the guy whose face is on the $100 bill, whose fame primarily derives from commanding genocidal Argentine government abuses against the peoples in Argentina who didn't use the Argentine currency, and who is also the most famous person in the world by that name. The Roca $100 bills are gradually being replaced—all the ones I have here have Eva Perón instead of Roca on them—but it's only been, I think, a couple of days since the last portrait of that white-supremacist rapist visage has been inflicted upon me, when I got my change at the supermarket on Monday.
So, I hope you can forgive my error of assuming that the astounding degree of relevance of your chosen name to the topic at hand, which I take to be the social value of alternatives to the state-imposed currency system in Argentina, was intentional partisan trolling on your part, rather than a sort of absurd coincidence of cosmic proportions. I should have at least checked your HN bio, as you say, before assuming ill intent.
I continue to maintain that your dismissal of the utility of Bitcoin bespeaks either an astonishing degree of willingness to prioritize your own interests, and the interests of people like yourself, over the interests of people like me; or an astonishing degree of confidence in your own judgment of what causal relations obtain in Argentina over the judgment of those of us who live here.
After this exchange, though, I don't blame you if you don't think much of my judgment!
I ctrl-F "subsid" in your link and don't see any source for your claim. Bitcoin puts a dollar value on (subsidizes) -ALL- energy. If there's a dirty coal plant you can run in your backyard without the government shutting you down, Bitcoin wants to know about it.
Your claim is (1) bitcoin takes energy (2) renewable is cheaper than nonrenewable (3) bitcoin is causing tons of new renewable capacity.
If that were true, why isn't every power plant in the US renewable? How on earth did Bitcoin manage to get this capacity that nobody else has? Money talks, right? Why aren't the mayors of San Francisco, New York, Chicago etc. trumpeting their new 100% renewable grids?
Then you might say that Bitcoin is tech-enabled and decentralized, you can run a mining rig near any energy+internet source. But that's equally true of a cloud compute farm. The fact that bitcoin is pointless hashes and not cloud compute is a historical quirk. Any Bitcoin node/farm could be replaced with an identical-power-usage server farm and do more good for society.
I'd like a source on your Bitcoin only uses renewable claim. I think if I run a miner on my home PC, which I believe has some natural gas in the energy mix, that argument fails.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-f...
> But right now the only places that Bitcoin is causing environmental damage are places where some government has unwisely subsidized fossil-fuel consumption, and Bitcoin itself is what puts an end to those subsidies.
I wrote this whole comment without getting to the end of your inane post. We agree that implicit subsidies are bad (burning fossil fuels creates externalities, failing to tax them is a subsidy). But your wordsmithing here is bad faith. Your argument is basically "governments thought people wouldn't be complete jerks, and Bitcoin sure proved them wrong!" Yeah it's human nature and perhaps inevitable, but 50+ years for some of these hydro dams without a problem until Bitcoin came in and ruined everything.
Bitcoin is an ongoing real time climate catastrophe. Get back to me when China and the US ban all forms of carbon-emitting energy production. Until then, those "subsidies" continue, and it matters quite a lot what use for the subsidized energy we find. I suggest cloud computing as a baseline. "environmental destruction right now" is exactly the current state of things.
I don't think bitcoin is "causing tons of new renewable capacity", if by that you mean inducing people to bring up many new power plants; its overall power usage is estimated at only about 12 GW. By comparison, PRC installed 71.7 GW of new wind power in 02020; at China's historical wind capacity factor of 22% that'll be 15.8 GW, more than the entire bitcoin network. Including the parts that are running off hydropower and the parts that are outside China.
> We agree that implicit subsidies are bad (burning fossil fuels creates externalities, failing to tax them is a subsidy)
I wasn't talking about implicit subsidies, which aren't enough to make fossil-fuel power price-competitive with renewables. I was talking about explicit subsidies. Like when I was in Venezuela you could fill up the 20-gallon gas tank on an old car for 19¢, because the gasoline was subsidized. That's the kind of subsidy that can make fossil fuels cheaper than renewables: you can run your bitcoin farm off a gas generator. It's not just "failing to tax them".
> 50+ years for some of these hydro dams without a problem until Bitcoin came in and ruined everything.
Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about.
> those "subsidies" continue, and it matters quite a lot what use for the subsidized energy we find.
Not really. I mean, a little? That 01967 Buick swilling that 1¢ per gallon gasoline is producing almost exactly the same amount of CO₂ as if the gasoline were getting burned by a nice new Honda motorcycle (or generator), and it's also producing a fair amount of unburned hydrocarbons and even methane. That matters a lot to the kids with asthma who live next door, and the global warming potential of the total horrific exhaust cocktail is a bit higher than if it were cleanly burned to CO₂ and H₂O. But, from a climate-change point of view, the high-order bit of the problem is that the government was subsidizing the burning of fossil fuels, which results in a lot more fossil fuels getting burned.
So the real problem is not what the energy is getting used for, but that the subsidies make it attractive to get that energy from fossil fuels instead of solar, because you pay for solar but the government pays for gasoline. If bitcoin mining could bring those subsidies to an end by making them suddenly much more costly, which I doubt, then so much the better.
But really, zooming out a bit, Venezuela is not the main culprit in climate change. Whatever happens there isn't going to have a big effect on climate change, one way or the other, until things chang a lot. Europe and the US are the main culprits.
> Bitcoin is an ongoing real time climate catastrophe.
12 GW is about 0.07% of total world marketed energy consumption. There's an ongoing real-time climate catastrophe, but at the moment Bitcoin is almost as much of a distraction as plastic straws. Not that it couldn't get bigger.
One of the most interesting aspects of crypto to me is it's like printing money - having held some bitcoin and having it in an account is rather like the government printing it and giving it to you as a grant. It doesn't directly create goods or services but it does have an effect for better or worse.
Bitcoin followed this pattern for a while. But then at some point it started to regress on that axis. You could no longer buy a pizza with it, you could no longer mine it, and it got too flooded by scammers to use safely. There's nothing to really DO with blockchain unless you buy into the subculture. That's very different from early internet, early web, early radio, you name it.