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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.