News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by paulryanrogers on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @06:07PM (#38933632)
Maybe a bespoke (mostly) decentralized implementation that requires more power than mid-sized countries isn't worth it; especially if it's throughput is 7 TPS.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by mrb on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:05PM (#38934216)
You could also say "more power than 3 large US cities" and your statement would be equally valid, yet much less impressive. It's about as useful as talking about "mid-size rocks". Fist-sized? Refrigerator-sized? Bus-sized?

Did you know that China curtails more hydropower than the global electricity consumption of Bitcoin, than entire "mid-size countries". China literally lets water flow through the dams without generating electricity with the turbines, because they have a hydropower surplus that they can't redistribute through their grid. When you start realizing things like that, you realize Bitcoin's electricity consumption is, fortunately, still a drop in the bucket, compared to the immense waste from, well, everything else.

Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by block_dagger on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:11PM (#38934282)
How much power does the existing system of mining, storage, minting, accounting, etc cost? Let’s compare.
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by thfuran on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:17PM (#38934332)
What percentage of financial transactions even involve coinage?
Re:SEC has not approved Bitcoin ETFs [fixed] by BolexNOLA on Tuesday January 09, 2024 @07:13PM (#38934304)
You know, I hear this repeated a lot, but I never see anyone put up numbers. I would be very curious to see your math.