cryptocurrencies

[Sarkus]

We were talking about Bitcoin. If you have some relevant information about Netflix, we can talk about that as well, I suppose.

Netflix has already been raised as a context already, or did you not read that part. The point stands, if you're worried about the environment, stop Netflix from operating.

The economy got on just fine without it until it was invented. What has changed since the invention of Bitcoin?

Ditto Netflix, Amazon, and pretty much any IT-based industry. What has changed with all of those is that people have found value in what they offer.

You have a very strange idea of how electricity production works. It isn't like electricity is stored in batteries, waiting to be used or wasted, for the most part. Instead, what happens is that electricity production is adjusted according to demand.

That's not what I'm talking about. You have base loads to cover the underlying demand, made up of constant energy producers (coal, gas, nuclear etc) and then you have your additional sources such as wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc, which can't be used as base due to inconsistency. If you have a solar farm that is not being used, and it has the capability of generating, then it is wasted energy if it is not being used.
So, no, my idea of how electricity production works is just fine, thanks. Maybe you should improve yours, eh?

If Bitcoin demands the energy supply equivalent to a medium sized nation, then the power stations to supply that energy will need to draw on whatever resources they use to generate electricity. As it happens, a lot of those resources are fossil fuels. Burning fossils fuels, as you may have heard, causes global heating. Global heating is bad for lots of reasons.

Not disputed. I look forward to you making the same argument against Netflix etc.

Helpfully, I pointed you towards exactly the sort of robust analysis you are looking for. Why don't you check it out?

I did. It didn't contain what I consider particularly robust analysis.

Nonsense. Everything it can. Ha!

Great counter-argument, JamesR. Can I use that one in the future?
The crypto-industry actually is doing everything it can, short of closing down, but then, you know, Netflix?
As it is, there isn't a huge amount they can do directly. Everything really lies at the feet of the suppliers. All the crypto industry itself can do is work toward a system that doesn't require as much computing power. Some, as said previously, have moved from Proof of Work (PoW) to Proof of Stake (PoS), which on the surface cuts down the need but it's not clear cut that it's any better. Otherwise, miners demand more efficient machines - thus reducing energy consumption and thus their costs - and governments are doing the rest by trying to move their supplies of electricity to more renewables.

Are you in the crypto industry? Got any vested interests you'd like to declare?

Why do you continue to raise strawmen, JamesR? Stop being a troll, please.

Any improvement is better than nothing. That doesn't change the fact that crypto is currently bad for the climate. Maybe it will get better, but it has a long way to go.

Netflix.

You have yet to make any compelling argument as to why cryptocurrencies are necessary or desirable.

Necessary? No. Netflix.
Desirable? Each to their own. Not particularly to me. But I'm not sure I could convince you anyway. I guess it'd be like trying to offer a compelling argument as to why Netflix is desirable to someone with no desire to watch television. So I won't try beyond what has already been stated here, which you don't find compelling. C'est la vie.

Ultimately, their impact on climate is really all about the innumerable harms that flow from global heating, especially above the 1.5-2 degree Celcius limits that scientists have determined are manageable.

Netflix.

Tell me why you value the entire crypto industry so much. Do you work in that industry? You seem very defensive.

I don't value it that much. But some people do. That's why it'd be nice to get that robust analysis I suggested.
But, again with the strawmen, and again with your pathetic attempts to argue the person rather than the points.

I have made no argument about "wasted" energy, whatever that might mean.

No, but I have. I made no argument about the environmental impact until you did. See how conversations go, JamesR?
I also didn't say "wasted" but "waste of". And if you don't know what is meant when someone says they consider something to be a "waste of..." then that is... troubling. Let's go with something along the lines of "unnecessary use of...". You know, like Netflix, I guess.

I made an argument about harmful effects related to climate change. Follow the link I put in my post if you want more detailed analysis.

You did, but they apply in general to users of energy, not to crypto, beyond them being a particularly big user.

That's a stupid argument.

No, it's not. It puts things into perspective. Perspective that you seem to be lacking.

It all adds up. Every 1% of energy produced by the burning of fossil fuels adds something to the total, and the total is what matters. 100 times 1% equals 100%.

Of course it all adds up. So let's all do our part, governments sort out the production, moving it from fossil to renewables, etc. I have no issues with that.

Your argument, poor as it is, is essential that we should ignore any "small" contributors to fossil fuel burning, where you presumably define "small" to include 0.5% of global energy consumption.

No, that is not my argument, but then you've never been particularly good at summarising things, resulting in you simply creating strawmen.
My argument is that every industry should do what they can, but that the solution will be from big-ticket items - notably the power production itself. Ignore contributors? No. But take them in context. Pointing fingers at individual industries for simply being heavy users isn't going to help. Offer solutions, not criticism. What do you think crypto can do differently? Let's hear how they're not doing what they can to reduce energy demand? I'm fairly sure you have nothing in your suitcase to offer other than "switch it off!". But do let's hear. Well?
Or are you really just someone who has nothing but the syllogism of "Energy use is hurting our environment! You use energy! Ergo you're bad for the environment!"

You're arbitrarily carving up energy production, as if you can sequester away climate change by pretending that it only happens when the packets of consumption exceed a magical threshold. That's not how it works. Stop being so naive.

Stop being a pathetic strawman-producing sanctimonious troll. Start responding to the actual arguments made, not what you want them to be. Can you do that?

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

If Bitcoin demands the energy supply equivalent to a medium sized nation, then the power stations to supply that energy will need to draw on whatever resources they use to generate electricity. As it happens, a lot of those resources are fossil fuels. Burning fossils fuels, as you may have heard, causes global heating. Global heating is bad for lots of reasons.

Not disputed.

Great! You could have left it at that, rather than making silly arguments and getting all worked up, again.

You agree that Bitcoin contributes to harmful climate change. That was my original point. You agree with me. So why continue to make a big issue of it?

What else did you post? Let's see...

Netflix has already been raised as a context already, or did you not read that part.

You did not provide any data on how Netflix contributes to climate change.

You are trying to defend Bitcoin using a tu quoque fallacy. But you haven't even made a good case for that at this point.

The point stands, if you're worried about the environment, stop Netflix from operating.

I'll need to see the data.

Ditto Netflix, Amazon, and pretty much any IT-based industry. What has changed with all of those is that people have found value in what they offer.

Yes, people like Netflix and Bitcoin. That is a poor argument for why we ought to keep them, if their climate impacts are as bad as you say.

That's not what I'm talking about. You have base loads to cover the underlying demand, made up of constant energy producers (coal, gas, nuclear etc) and then you have your additional sources such as wind, solar, tidal, hydro etc, which can't be used as base due to inconsistency. If you have a solar farm that is not being used, and it has the capability of generating, then it is wasted energy if it is not being used.
So, no, my idea of how electricity production works is just fine, thanks. Maybe you should improve yours, eh?

No, I'm good, thanks. Nothing you said there begins to address the climate change issue.

I did. It didn't contain what I consider particularly robust analysis.

You're a smart guy. Follow the breadcrumb trail. The detailed study that article refers to looks pretty robust to me. Did you follow up on it? What are your specific criticisms?

Great counter-argument, JamesR. Can I use that one in the future?

Against a stupid claim like that one you made? Sure!

The crypto-industry actually is doing everything it can, short of closing down, but then, you know, Netflix?

Are you under the impression that two bads somehow combine to make a good, Sarkus?

Are you aware that's a fallacy?

As it is, there isn't a huge amount they can do directly.

They could shut it down.

And yes, they could shut down Netflix, too.

Why do you continue to raise strawmen, JamesR? Stop being a troll, please.

You didn't answer the question I asked you. Please try again.

Are you in the crypto industry? Got any vested interests in crypto?

Necessary? No.

See how easy that was?

Desirable? Each to their own. Not particularly to me.

But you're fine with it, despite the adverse climate impact?

But I'm not sure I could convince you anyway.

Convince me of what? That Bitcoin is a great product, regardless of its climate impact? I'm not sure you could, either. So far, nothing you've said has swayed me to your point of view on that.

Please tell me why it is a good thing to tolerate the climate impacts of Bitcoin, Sarkus. Tell me why you think it's not a problem. Try not to get distracted by Netflix; we can talk about that later if you like.

I guess it'd be like trying to offer a compelling argument as to why Netflix is desirable to someone with no desire to watch television.

I understand that people enjoy Netflix. People enjoy lots of things that contribute to harmful climate change. Does that make them good, then, according to you? You're willing to sacrifice the Earth's climate as long as you're happy right now? Is that how it goes? Just wondering.

I don't value it that much.

For somebody who doesn't value it much, you're spending a lot of time trying to defend it. Why?

But, again with the strawmen, and again with your pathetic attempts to argue the person rather than the points.

Do you believe a possible vested interest would be an irrelevant strawman here? Explain it to me. Because, to me, it would seem to be obviously relevant that a person who has a vested interest in keeping Bitcoin up and running might be motivated to argue stridently to keep it up and running - even dishonestly, possibly.

Why is this a straw man? Explain. Tell me why the vested interest wouldn't matter in this case.

No, but I have. I made no argument about the environmental impact until you did. See how conversations go, JamesR?

Yes. I see that despite your saying that you agree with me that Bitcoin contributes harmfully to global heating, you are still very keen to support its ongoing existence and use.

What is your motivation? I'm really interested to know, now.

I also didn't say "wasted" but "waste of". And if you don't know what is meant when someone says they consider something to be a "waste of..." then that is... troubling.

I know the meanings of the words, which ought to be obvious to you, but you thought you'd try to insult me instead, for some reason. Why did you try to do that, Sarkus?

I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about a "waste of energy". Perhaps you will explain. What are you thinking is wasteful, exactly? Explain where the waste lies, for you. Oh, wait...

Let's go with something along the lines of "unnecessary use of...".

You agree with me that Bitcoin, like Netflix, is an unnecessary use of energy, then? Or not?

You did, but they apply in general to users of energy, not to crypto, beyond them being a particularly big user.

Well, surprise! You've circled around to my original point. As you will recall, that point was that Bitcoin is a particularly big user of non-renewable energy, which makes a significant contributor to harmful climate change.

But you have already agreed this is the case. Right? So we're in agreement now? It sounds like you still have some residual concerns.

No, it's not. It puts things into perspective. Perspective that you seem to be lacking.

0.55% of world energy consumption on something that has no particular redeeming features strikes me as a frivolous and short-sighted frolic, to me. How about you?

Of course it all adds up. So let's all do our part, governments sort out the production, moving it from fossil to renewables, etc. I have no issues with that.

It's good we've reached consensus, then. It seems like we have. Have we?

No, that is not my argument, but then you've never been particularly good at summarising things, resulting in you simply creating strawmen.

Good to hear that's not your argument.

Are you still defending Bitcoin now, or have you given up on that, now you agree with me? Just so we're clear and all.

My argument is that every industry should do what they can, but that the solution will be from big-ticket items - notably the power production itself. Ignore contributors? No. But take them in context. Pointing fingers at individual industries for simply being heavy users isn't going to help. Offer solutions, not criticism. What do you think crypto can do differently?

I'm not an expert on crypto. You mentioned a potential move from proof of work to proof of stake. That sounds like a very sensible move in the right direction, if you ask me, as a non-expert. Mind you, scrapping cryptocurrencies
completely would seem even more helpful, from the climate perspective.

Maybe the cryptocurrencies should all come out and strongly lobby for a move to renewable energy generation. Do you agree?

Let's hear how they're not doing what they can to reduce energy demand? I'm fairly sure you have nothing in your suitcase to offer other than "switch it off!". But do let's hear. Well?

You already mentioned some options, did you not? Did you forget?

Or are you really just someone who has nothing but the syllogism of "Energy use is hurting our environment! You use energy! Ergo you're bad for the environment!"

No, silly! It's not energy use that's the problem. It's the burning of fossil fuels. This is climate change 101, Sarkus. Get with the programme! It's 2022!

Stop being a pathetic strawman-producing sanctimonious troll.

The argument I put to you was very simple. For some reason, you took issue with it, before coming round and suddenly agreeing with me. The rest is all this personal bullshit. You could have let my comment pass, but you chose to make an issue of it, until you realised you agree with me after all. That only leaves the personal insults and crap you suddenly want to inject into all your posts. You ought to stop that. Agreement is a good thing, Sarkus. Try fighting with the people you disagree with, instead. Unless you're just looking for an excuse to argue, pointlessly. Is that what you want?

Start responding to the actual arguments made, not what you want them to be. Can you do that?

We're in agreement, as far as I can tell, so there's nothing that needs further discussion here.

Right?

 

[James R]

Your posts read like trolling, to me.

You see what you want to see, I guess. But you still didn't answer my question. Why is that, Seattle?

You and Sarkus aren't the same person, are you? He gets mad, you get mad. What's with you two? You're emotionally synchronised, it seems.

Do you have a vested interest in trolling Bitcoin or is it just truly ignorance?

I'm concerned about the harmful effects of global heating. Bitcoin, as I mentioned, is a significant contributor to those harms.

I don't have a vested interest, other than as a concerned citizen of the world who wants the best for my family and their descendants, not to mention the best for many other people with whom I share this planet - yourself included, as it happens.

Why did you call me ignorant? Please explain, if there's something flawed in my position on this. So far, you've insulted me, but made no actual arguments. Why is that?

 

[Sarkus]

Great! You could have left it at that, rather than making silly arguments and getting all worked up, again.

"Silly arguments"? "Getting all worked up again"? Grow up, JamesR.

You agree that Bitcoin contributes to harmful climate change. That was my original point. You agree with me. So why continue to make a big issue of it?

Because I didn't want to believe that you were saying something quite as vacuuous as "energy users contribute to harmful climate change". But, hey, if that's all it was, I guess you can jump off here?

You did not provide any data on how Netflix contributes to climate change.

They're relatively large energy users, JamesR. Not as large as Bitcoin, but not small. Even before you add in the energy used by homes to actually stream and watch the content.

You are trying to defend Bitcoin using a tu quoque fallacy. But you haven't even made a good case for that at this point.

I'm not defending them other than putting them in context, which your initial comment failed to do.

I'll need to see the data.

Seriously?

Yes, people like Netflix and Bitcoin. That is a poor argument for why we ought to keep them,...

What other argument for keeping something unnecessary do you think there is?

Nothing you said there begins to address the climate change issue.

I was correcting your misunderstanding of my comment. It wasn't in and of itself addressing the climate change issue, but explaining how using what would otherwise be a wasted renewable resource is not contributing as badly as people initially claim from the headline numbers alone.

What are your specific criticisms?

Lack of adequate context in terms of industries, economic benefits etc.

Against a stupid claim like that one you made? Sure!

You thinking it stupid is nothing but an evasion tactic. Was it that difficult you couldn't actually provide a counter?
Let me state it again: Crypto, as an industry, is also doing everything it can to reduce energy consumption. Even your own linked analysis details what it is doing.
For example: "Ethereum is aiming to reduce its energy use by 99.95 percent by 2022 through transitioning to an alternative validation system called proof of stake".
So, you dismissively say "Ha!" to that. What more could they do, do you think, that they are not doing, short of stopping entirely?

Are you under the impression that two bads somehow combine to make a good, Sarkus?

No. My point, which you don't want to argue against, is not that it is not contributing - it is - but that you need to look at context before judging Bitcoin compared to others. But, as said, if you wanted nothing more than the fatuous, okay.

Are you aware that's a fallacy?

Are you aware it's a strawman from you, though?

They could shut it down.
And yes, they could shut down Netflix, too.

Ah, yes, the fatuous response. Thanks for confirming your intent here.

Are you in the crypto industry? Got any vested interests in crypto?

It's not relevant, JamesR, to anything I have said. Will it make anything I have said more or less true than it already is? So please stop asking clearly irrelevant questions.

See how easy that was?

Is Netflix necessary? No. Is Sciforums necessary? No. Is pretty much everything you have, use, do, necessary? So I'm not sure that something being not necessary is quite the revelation you seem to think.

But you're fine with it, despite the adverse climate impact?

Yes. Like Netflix, Amazon, air travel, supermarkets, heating my house, capitalism etc.

Convince me of what? That Bitcoin is a great product, regardless of its climate impact? I'm not sure you could, either.

There has been no intention to convince you that it is a "great product", but the fact that it has value should be sufficiently compelling evidence that some people find it desirable. Do you find it desirable? I neither know nor care. It is not important to the point I made.

Please tell me why it is a good thing to tolerate the climate impacts of Bitcoin, Sarkus. Tell me why you think it's not a problem.

It is no more a problem than the nature of energy supply in general. It is no more a problem than anything else that is not necessary that utilises energy. It is about context, and where the main drivers for resolving the overall problem (global warming) will come from.

I understand that people enjoy Netflix. People enjoy lots of things that contribute to harmful climate change. Does that make them good, then, according to you? You're willing to sacrifice the Earth's climate as long as you're happy right now? Is that how it goes?

In order: No. Everyone is, to an extent. Pretty much.

For somebody who doesn't value it much, you're spending a lot of time trying to defend it. Why?

If I see what I think is an injustice being committed, should I just sit idly by?

Yes. I see that despite your saying that you agree with me that Bitcoin contributes harmfully to global heating, you are still very keen to support its ongoing existence and use.

Ambivalent is probably the best term.

I know the meanings of the words, which ought to be obvious to you, but you thought you'd try to insult me instead, for some reason. Why did you try to do that, Sarkus?

You: "I have made no argument about 'wasted' energy, whatever that might mean." Now you say you do know the meaning? So were you lying before? For effect? Note that you put "wasted" in quotes, not "wasted energy", so it is clear that when you said you didn't know what "that might mean" you were referring to "wasted". Or was that an error on your part?
As for trying to insult you... nope... it would be troubling. Is that an insult?

You agree with me that Bitcoin, like Netflix, is an unnecessary use of energy, then? Or not?

I do. Do you fully appreciate what it means for something to be "necessary", though?

Well, surprise! You've circled around to my original point. As you will recall, that point was that Bitcoin is a particularly big user of non-renewable energy, which makes a significant contributor to harmful climate change.

Your fatuous comment, sure. I honestly thought you had more behind it than simply saying it uses a lot of energy. But it appears not. So, yeah, sure, we agree. It uses a lot of energy.
But, here's the biggie: so what?
Let's add something behind what is otherwise a vacuum, shall we?

0.55% of world energy consumption on something that has no particular redeeming features strikes me as a frivolous and short-sighted frolic, to me. How about you?

"No particular redeeming features" to you. It does to some people.

It's good we've reached consensus, then. It seems like we have. Have we?

To your initial pointless and obvious statement, sure. There was never a disagreement.

Are you still defending Bitcoin now, or have you given up on that, now you agree with me? Just so we're clear and all.

Bitcoin is harmful to the environment, in the same way that every unnecessary use of energy is harmful. I would never defend Bitcoin against such a pointless and obvious assertion. And since it's now clear all you were making was that pointless and obvious assertion, no, I am not defending Bitcoin against it.
Apologies, therefore, for trying to assume that you were making more than the pointless and obvious assertion that you did. My fault entirely.

I'm not an expert on crypto. You mentioned a potential move from proof of work to proof of stake. That sounds like a very sensible move in the right direction, if you ask me, as a non-expert.

Do you even know what PoW and PoS refer to?

Mind you, scrapping cryptocurrencies completely would seem even more helpful, from the climate perspective.

Scrapping everything that is not necessary would be better.

Maybe the cryptocurrencies should all come out and strongly lobby for a move to renewable energy generation. Do you agree?

Everyone should.

No, silly! It's not energy use that's the problem. It's the burning of fossil fuels.

Until governments change the nature of supply, energy use is proxy for fossil fuel.

The argument I put to you was very simple.

You caught me off-guard with just how simple and obvious you were being. My bad.

For some reason, you took issue with it, before coming round and suddenly agreeing with me.

As soon as you made it clear you were simply stating to the effect that all unecessary energy use currently hurts the environment, there is no argument. It's obvious. So, yeah. Okay. Whatever. Again, my bad for thinking you had specific issues against Bitcoin.

The rest is all this personal bullshit.

What personal bullshit are you referring to? Referring to my comments as "silly", and that I was "getting all worked up, again", in just the first line of your latest response?

You could have let my comment pass, but you chose to make an issue of it, until you realised you agree with me after all.

An honest mistake that I thought you were actually making something of a point worthy of discussion rather than being as obvious as you were. Yup. My bad. But, hey, the discussion is there for any discerning reader to follow.

That only leaves the personal insults and crap you suddenly want to inject into all your posts.

Glass houses, JamesR.

I'm still genuinely interested in why you think someone's vested interest has any bearing on the veracity or strength of what they say. So if you want to tackle why you want to ask otherwise irrelevant questions, feel free. Or avoid it. Your choice.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

Your post was far too boring and predictable to merit any kind of lengthy reply. So, I'm not going to go line by line.

Clearly, you continue to miss the important point that Bitcoin uses a disproportionately large amount of electricity, which largely comes from burning fossil fuels. Its usage, as I pointed out, is larger than the usage of entire nations, larger than the Netherlands, for instance.

Your defence of Bitcoin amounts to that you think it has some kind of unspecified "value". You won't be open about any vested interest you might have in promoting Bitcoin. Readers can draw their own conclusions about that; I certainly have. Your lack of transparency doesn't make you look good.

Your repeated claim that "crypto is doing everything it can to reduce energy consumption" is vacuous and obviously false. It smacks of vested interest to even suggest that with a straight face.

The bottom line here is that you have admitted that you're fine with the current state of Bitcoin, despite understanding its outsized adverse impact on climate change.

So, overall, we have a picture of a man with a vested interest whose best argument in defence of the indefensible is that he enjoys Bitcoin.

You also claim not to understand why failing to declare your vested interest is a bad thing.

Your position on this is more than clear.

Thanks for an illuminating discussion. We now know a lot more about you than we did before.

 

[Sarkus]

Your post was far too boring and predictable to merit any kind of lengthy reply. So, I'm not going to go line by line.

If being exciting and unpredictable was a requirement for posts then, dear JamesR, you would have no readers of your drivel. It is just more monotonous failure to understand other people's positions, ad hominem arguments, sanctimonious bile, and naivety. But, hey, here we are.

Clearly, you continue to miss the important point that Bitcoin uses a disproportionately large amount of electricity, which largely comes from burning fossil fuels. Its usage, as I pointed out, is larger than the usage of entire nations, larger than the Netherlands, for instance.

That has been known for quite a while, JamesR. It has not escaped me. But it is typical of you to assume that it has.

Your defence of Bitcoin amounts to that you think it has some kind of unspecified "value".

I await your well thought through rebuttal.

You won't be open about any vested interest you might have in promoting Bitcoin. Readers can draw their own conclusions about that; I certainly have. Your lack of transparency doesn't make you look good.

Wow, still with the irrelevancy, still with efforts to poison the well with this ad hominem. For someone trying to be the poster child of rational thought and critical thinking, let's put this in the "oops" bucket, shall we?

Your repeated claim that "crypto is doing everything it can to reduce energy consumption" is vacuous and obviously false.

Then I await your well-argued rebuttal. Your examples of what it's not doing, for example, that I have now asked you for several times to no avail. Instead just dishonest evasion and insult. Remember those glass houses I mentioned?
Instead you rely on your personal incredulity and ignorance of the matter.
[Quite]It smacks of vested interest to even suggest that with a straight face.[/quote]Tell you what, JamesR, let's stick to actual relevant argument, with out this ad hominem nonsense. If you can show how it's relevant to the point made, sure, let's carry on and I'll answer you. Otherwise, stop being an ad hominem-flinging fool.

The bottom line here is that you have admitted that you're fine with the current state of Bitcoin, despite understanding its outsized adverse impact on climate change.

I understand it's adverse impact. "Outsized" is your assumption that has not been granted. Try again.

So, overall, we have a picture of a man with a vested interest whose best argument in defence of the indefensible is that he enjoys Bitcoin.

Strawman much? The picture you've painted of yourself is of an ignorant populist, with no actual argument, and unable to argue other than through fallacies (Strawman, as hominem etc). C'est la vie.

You also claim not to understand why failing to declare your vested interest is a bad thing.

It's not. But I await your actual argument as to why it is relevant, 'cos all you've offered is your repeated claim that it is, no actual substance, although I guess readers have come to expect that from you.

Your position on this is more than clear.

I have been clear, that's true, but you have failed to understand that position. Go figure.

Thanks for an illuminating discussion. We now know a lot more about you than we did before.

As said, I've been quite clear. You, though, have failed to understand it, and have offered so little other than attempted fallacies.
Whatever.

 

[James R]

Well, that was a useless post, Sarkus. Want to go one more?

 

[Sarkus]

Well, that was a useless post, Sarkus. Want to go one more?

Sure, why not. Nothing better to do for a moment....
Talking to you does seem to be useless, you're quite correct. I guess I'm a slow learner in that respect. My bad.

 

[Tiassa]

You and Sarkus aren't the same person, are you? He gets mad, you get mad. What's with you two? You're emotionally synchronised, it seems.

Maybe it's you. People feel insulted when you misrepresent them↑. When you seek to provoke people that way, what do you actually expect?

Meanwhile, not everyone who disagrees with you is necessarily in cahoots.

 

[exchemist]

You can use PayPal to do that for anyone that accepts PayPal.

I wouldn't currently use Bitcoin to buy stuff anymore than I would use gold but you can do it. Bitcoin is best thought of as a store of value, a commodity, it's decentralized and limited. Other crypto is best thought of as securities, centralized and not limited.

I agree. It's not, in practical terms, an alternative currency. It's like (fool's) gold.

 

[Seattle]

I agree. It's not, in practical terms, an alternative currency. It's like (fool's) gold.

You could make the same argument for fiat currency. It's constantly being debased You don't make that argument because you understand fiat currency (somewhat) but don't understand Bitcoin.

Put $10k in your checking account for 10 years and buy $10k worth of Bitcoin today and then put that in in a cold storage wallet and see which buys more in 10 years. Feel free to do the same with fool's gold for that matter if it pleases you.

 

[candy]

At one point bitcoin was around 40,000 it is currently under 17,000.
Not my idea of a good investment.

 

[Seattle]

At one point bitcoin was around 40,000 it is currently under 17,000.
Not my idea of a good investment.

At one point it was $2.

At one point you could buy a pizza for $2 and now a pizza is $15. A dollar may not be a good investment.

Last year Apple stock was $174 in August and earlier this month it was $135. Is Apple not a good investment?

 

[Sarkus]

At one point bitcoin was around 40,000 it is currently under 17,000.
Not my idea of a good investment.

In 2013 Bitcoin was around 20. So whether it is now 17,000 or 40,000, it seems like it has been quite a good investment. Not exactly returns I would fail to be happy at.

People too often decry what they missed out on and don't understand, and as a result will then miss out on it again, and so decry again how awful it is.

I guess Facebook is also a bad investment, since earlier this year it was c.400 and is now c.100. But compared to the c.40 at launch it has still been quite good, and may well do longer term (depending on Zuckerberg, although that's another issue).
But, yeah, we could look at any downturn in a specific sector and say how it is "not my idea of a good investment". Ignore where it's been or where it could go, for example, and, yeah, nothing looks like a good investment, I guess.

 

[Tiassa]

The point stands, if you're worried about the environment, stop Netflix from operating.

I think the analogy fails because Netflix actually does something. Doesn't do much, and does it poorly, but it actually does something. Google and Amazon, too.

And don't get me wrong; most days I'll tell you Amazon and Google need to go away, but the analogy to cryptocurrency doesn't really work. Remember, the source that makes that analogy is looking at only one question, investment. Same with the S&P Global overview I posted. They deal with the fact that crypto exists.

A comparison between cryptocurrency and a sales and distribution network (Amazon), data analysis and distribution network (Google), or even subscriber entertainment network (Netflix), is inappropriate. Like with Bitcoin, all anyone could ever explain was what to do, i.e., mine. The manner in which that creates and stores value is unstable and insecure insofar as it is largely a participatory convention that can be wrecked on the rocks more easily than reliable fiat currencies. Indeed, some discussions of how cryptocurrency isn't real currency will occasionally point to Robux and Habbo Coins as more stable pretenses of currency.

And the day I can buy beer at the bar with Robux, I want to know who the regulatory agency is.

Honestly, I just don't see that cryptocurrency does anything, and that's a vital flaw with the investment-strategy comparison of crypto to Netflix, Amazon, Google, &c. The world would probably be better off if we hadn't wasted the electricity.

 

[Seattle]

Tiassa, that's a valid response. IMO, it's wrong but that is subjective on my part. Bitcoin, is a store of value, it's been around 11 years, has increased in value over that time period and since it is decentralized, it's outside the control (as far a confiscation or debasement) of the government. That's something whether you value that less than I do or not. It's more important, IMO, than Netflix and will be around longer, IMO (think Blockbuster).

It's also the only asset class that was designed specifically for the internet. Real estate can't be moved, stocks are centralized and you can never truly control them. You could move a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin across the world at almost the speed of light and those would be "cleared" funds. And, that's something and it has a value even if people disagree about the degree of that value.

It's also likely to be more important and more functional over time just as the internet and even email for that matter, initially were more of a novelty than anything else. When I first got a personal computer and another person at work mentioned that he had just gotten one too and he joked that he even had an "email address" and we both laughed because, at the time, we both knew it had little use since we didn't know anyone else with a personal computer and therefore none of our families and friends had an email address. It was like owning only one walkie talkie.

Managers used to brag about how they didn't know how to send an email or even know how to use a computer because that's what secretaries were for. Times changed quickly however. It's my opinion that Bitcoin will be a lot more pervasive as a store of value in 10 years. That's just an opinion of course and I might be wrong.

We will still be using the dollar to pay for tacos but that may not be the case in Nicaragua and similar 3rd world countries but the Bitcoin use case as a store of value is what I'm most focused on.

 

[James R]

You could move a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin across the world at almost the speed of light and those would be "cleared" funds.

Bitcoin, like every currency, only has value (by which I mean "buying power") to the extent that people agree it does. That billion dollars you mention is just a number on a screen. If you want to do anything with it, you must find somebody who is willing to exchange it for "fiat currency", goods or services.

Without digital currency exchanges, which take in "fiat currency" and "convert" it to Bitcoin or whatever, and vice versa, there is zero value in having a Bitcoin wallet full of the number 1 billion (or any other number).

At any time, a sovereign nation could declare that converting Bitcoin (or any other digital currency) to "fiat currency" is illegal in that nation.

More generally, the "value" in Bitcoin and other digital currencies can and does fluctuate wildly based just on the perception of those who hold it. It is an illusion that it is a "store of value". It could literally be worth nothing tomorrow.

 

[Seattle]

Bitcoin, like every currency, only has value (by which I mean "buying power") to the extent that people agree it does. That billion dollars you mention is just a number on a screen. If you want to do anything with it, you must find somebody who is willing to exchange it for "fiat currency", goods or services.

Without digital currency exchanges, which take in "fiat currency" and "convert" it to Bitcoin or whatever, and vice versa, there is zero value in having a Bitcoin wallet full of the number 1 billion (or any other number).

At any time, a sovereign nation could declare that converting Bitcoin (or any other digital currency) to "fiat currency" is illegal in that nation.

More generally, the "value" in Bitcoin and other digital currencies can and does fluctuate wildly based just on the perception of those who hold it. It is an illusion that it is a "store of value". It could literally be worth nothing tomorrow.

The US Dollar could be worth nothing tomorrow. When countries switch from one currency "peso" to the "new peso" then the "peso" is worth nothing unless you convert it to whatever exchange rate the government has stated for the "new peso".

You seem to be imagining in my example of a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin that someone just created a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin. It's limited in number and the only way that one got a billion dollars into Bitcoin was by having a billion U.S. dollars (or something similar) in the first place.

By the time a system develops to where you can do that, that system isn't going to easily go away. Sure, it's worth a billion because someone thought it had that value. That's why I might have (for example) $1,000 U.S. dollars. If I didn't think it was worth that I would trade it for British pounds.

Gold isn't worth anything (other than for it's jewelry and electronics value) except that people accept it as having value. Bitcoin is a better store of value than gold. The US dollar is a better store of value that the current Venezuelan currency.

Before the latest market corrections Bitcoin had a total valuation of about 1 trillion dollars. It got that valuation by people purchasing it using 1 trillion dollars. It's like arguing that MS Windows has no real value because anyone can start another operating system. It's true, they could, but they won't to the same degree and therefore MS Windows is valuable.

Bitcoin is valuable because it has been accepted as having value, it's limited to 21 million Bitcoins and it has been around now for 11 years. Those are hard hurdles to overcome. You and I could start another Facebook but no one will join because the real Facebook already exists and everyone already belongs to that one.

 

[James R]

The US Dollar could be worth nothing tomorrow.

In theory, yes, but in practice it is much more closely tied to tangible assets.

You seem to be imagining in my example of a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin that someone just created a billion dollars worth of Bitcoin. It's limited in number and the only way that one got a billion dollars into Bitcoin was by having a billion U.S. dollars (or something similar) in the first place.

Not at all.

As has already been discussed, if you bought a Bitcoin for $2 a few years ago, now you'd have $150, or something. So, how did your $2 "multiply in value" by 75 times? What caused that? Nothing changed in terms of tangible value. All that changed was some investor perceptions. They could - and do - change in the opposite direction, without much notice. We've already seen many digital currencies collapse. Why do you think Bitcoin is special or different?

By the time a system develops to where you can do that, that system isn't going to easily go away. Sure, it's worth a billion because someone thought it had that value. That's why I might have (for example) $1,000 U.S. dollars. If I didn't think it was worth that I would trade it for British pounds.

The trick to creating money out of nothing is to convince somebody else that your $2 imaginary coin is really worth $150. Lots of crypto traders imagine themselves to be - and are sometimes portrayed by others to be - financial wizards, right up to the time they lose all their money. This isn't restricted to crypto traders, of course. There are lots of other essentially imaginary "assets" that depend on sentiment in the same way.

Gold isn't worth anything (other than for it's jewelry and electronics value) except that people accept it as having value.

At least it is a tangible asset, even if its valuation is overblown. It's overblown, by the way, because those clever traders have all grown up believing it's a "safe haven", in a similar way to how you apparently believe that Bitcoin is "safe". As long as that group-think consensus has a hold on people's minds, the system "works", I guess. As soon as that grip fails, however, that's when people suddenly discover the truth - that their valuable "asset" is a fiction.

Bitcoin is a better store of value than gold.

What makes you think that?

The US dollar is a better store of value that the current Venezuelan currency.

Please define "store of value". What do you mean by that? What value is being stored? What's guarantees that your "store of value" retains (or increases) its value over time?

Before the latest market corrections Bitcoin had a total valuation of about 1 trillion dollars. It got that valuation by people purchasing it using 1 trillion dollars.

No. It is valued according to what people currently are willing to pay for it. People who bought cheap in the past have notionally gained by doing nothing, which is why I ask where the "value" is that you speak of. On the other hand, people who paid $200 a while ago and now can only sell for $150 have "lost value".

Bitcoin is like gambling. Not that this is dissimilar to gambling on the value of something like gold, or the Venezuelan peso.

It's like arguing that MS Windows has no real value because anyone can start another operating system.

No, it's really not.

MS Windows' value lies in its utility. We use MS windows to produce stuff. Bitcoin has no value in and of itself. Having $1 million "worth" of Bitcoin in somebody's imaginary wallet does nothing to produce anything. It is not good for anything, other than gambling that maybe later, when you're ready to cash out, some other idiot will be willing to pay more for it than what it cost you.

Bitcoin is valuable because it has been accepted as having value, it's limited to 21 million Bitcoins and it has been around now for 11 years. Those are hard hurdles to overcome.

You are correct that it is hard to overcome the hurdle of people imagining things to have value when, in fact, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about them. That's how certain segments of our financial system work these days, I recognise. It's a kind of group-think madness, really. It only works because a lot of people don't think very hard about it. Those who do sometimes end up getting rich, without actually producing anything for anybody else. And, of course, sometimes those smart cookies also crash in a heap.

You and I could start another Facebook but no one will join because the real Facebook already exists and everyone already belongs to that one.

Facebook provides a service, at least. Its "value" is notional, like Bitcoin, and currently seems to be on the slide. Young people these days prefer to hand their personal data to China, apparently.

 

[Sarkus]

Without digital currency exchanges, which take in "fiat currency" and "convert" it to Bitcoin or whatever, and vice versa, there is zero value in having a Bitcoin wallet full of the number 1 billion (or any other number).

That's not true. If there is a marketplace where Bitcoin has value, where you can sell things/services for Bitcoin and can spend it on things you want, then it has value. If someone gives me 100 Bitcoin, yes, I could go to an exchange and convert it into USD 1.7million. But maybe there is a house for sale for 50 Bitcoin, and a luxury yacht that I'm happy to spend the other 50 Bitcoin on, and the sellers are happy to take the Bitcoin as payment, then it has value even without exchanges.
Not too long ago you could have spent that 1 billion in bitcoin on a factory of Teslas. No exchange necessary - just pass the funds to Tesla's wallet and the cars were yours. Musk may even have sold you some of his personal shares in the company in exchange for it. It has value even without exchanges if the buyer and seller both agree it does.
Ultimately, so the hope goes, it will be like a second currency in all countries. The only time you will need an exchange is if you are using two currencies and need to convert between them. If you run out of fiat, you sell some Bitcoin for more fiat, and vice versa. But it's likely in such a scenario that most places would accept both. But it's perceivable you might choose to be be paid in Bitcoin, and spend your Bitcoin across the world, all without needing an exchange.

At any time, a sovereign nation could declare that converting Bitcoin (or any other digital currency) to "fiat currency" is illegal in that nation.

At any time a sovereign nation could declare that using any other currency than its own fiat is illegal, as has been the case by the Taliban in Afghanistan since 2021, banning all foreign currency. But, ultimately, so what? Bitcoin, like all currency, is ultimately a medium of barter. Instead of trading some chicken for some bread, you sell the chicken for Bitcoin, and buy the bread with Bitcoin. That's how it will eventually work, so the argument goes, when it reaches its potential as a currency. Banning it won't help any more than banning any other currency in a country. You think USD is not used in Afghanistan, for example? If enough people want to flout the ban such that there remains a thriving marketplace where it has value, then the ban becomes rather impotent, and the alternative medium of exchange (aka currency) has value.

More generally, the "value" in Bitcoin and other digital currencies can and does fluctuate wildly based just on the perception of those who hold it.

No, that's also not true. It fluctuates wildly on the perception of those who want to hold it. If noone wants to hold it in the future, it will have zero value. If everyone wants to hold it, it has incredible value for something with limited supply. In the same way shares in a company are not valued by those that hold shares, but by those that want to hold shares. The price rises until those that want to buy them no longer think it a fair valuee. The price falls until those that do hold them can sell to those that want. In both cases the value is determined by those that want to buy them, not those that do hold them.

It is an illusion that it is a "store of value". It could literally be worth nothing tomorrow.

No, it couldn't. There are sufficient people who value the technology to give it significant value. Even if all the world bans it, banned exchanges from crypto to fiat, there would still be value in it, just with activity driven underground.