cryptocurrencies

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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

Netflix.

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.

Netflix.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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!"

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?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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?

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.

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

Seriously?

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

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.

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

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?

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 it's a strawman from you, though?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Ambivalent is probably the best term.

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?

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

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?

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

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

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.

Do you even know what PoW and PoS refer to?

Scrapping everything that is not necessary would be better.

Everyone should.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

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.

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.

I await your well thought through rebuttal.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Feel free to do the same with fool's gold for that matter if it pleases you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

 

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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 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.

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.

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.