Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

el diablo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Think. There is a near 99% scientific consensus on the issue, and these changes are unprecedented in 2,000 years

Anyway, moving on, it looks like the rumours about Sun were true, he's obviously been rapped by authorities and has issued a public apology

"“My intention of having the lunch with Buffett was because of my admiration for him and my enthusiasm for charity. It was simple, but also with self-interest to promote the blockchain industry and my project. But my immature, naive, and impulsive conducts with my big mouth have turned it into an out-of-control and failed over-marketing hype and led to a significant series of unexpected consequences,”

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's how denialists work. Regardless of subject, they use the same convoluted technique over and over, distorting reports, leaving out context, highlighting weak studies, ignoring stronger studies, ignoring the consensus, highlighting isolated experts/cranks/woo doctors over the consensus, unrecognised internet pseudo-scientific blogs over recognised scientific organisations, playing endless games with semantics, numbers

On the internet, any crank can deny anything, which is why we have 300 page vaccine denial threads, climate denial threads, even holocaust denial threads - same bull**** over and over

So if someones thinks that vaccines are a conspiracy or that man-made climate change isn't happening, that's cool. It's utter nonsense of course, but it's cool.

So yeah, anyhow, way off topic, moving swiftly along

Oh dear, he's posting links to The Guardian to prove his point. Anyway, I'm done trying to educate you. This climate change hoax is probably the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

Dohnjoe

So now there are money laundering accusations doing the rounds against Sun - guy can't catch a break

vargoo

el diablo wrote: »

Oh dear, he's posting links to The Guardian to prove his point. Anyway, I'm done trying to educate you. This climate change hoax is probably the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

― Mark Twain

What's wrong with the guardian??!

JohnnyFlash

Dohnjoe wrote: »

So now there are money laundering accusations doing the rounds against Sun - guy can't catch a break

No smoke without fire. He’s a sociopathic scumbag. Like McAfee, Wright, Pierce etc. Scene is crawling with these insects.

el diablo

vargoo wrote: »

What's wrong with the guardian??!

They're staffed mostly by activists rather than real journalists and they've an extreme leftist bias. And they're also extremely anti-crypto. I'd put them alongside Vice, Huff Post, Buzzfeed, Salon etc as unreliable sources of information.
Anyway, I don't wish to derail this thread.

Dohnjoe

el diablo wrote: »

They're staffed mostly by activists rather than real journalists and they've an extreme leftist bias. And they're also extremely anti-crypto. I'd put them alongside Vice, Huff Post, Buzzfeed, Salon etc as unreliable sources of information.
Anyway, I don't wish to derail this thread.

Interesting opinions.

Left of centre, factual information is rated as high, and they have a clean fact check record
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Staying on the topic of crypto, they are "anti-crypto", in what way?

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

Miners will operate wherever is the most profitable.

Absa freakin lootely.

Bob24 wrote: »

but I think this is an inherent challenge with a decentralised infrastructure like bitcoin.

A decentralized network infrastructure, yes. However, if you have any significant mining operation, there's no way that network operators aren't going to notice.

Bob24 wrote: »

there isn't really any way to control which type of energy is used to do the mining work (if individual countries introduce environmental regulations which make mining less profitable than in less regulated places, miners will just move location).

That's not correct. By-laws have been set down at municipal level to prevent crypto mining competing with domestic users for supply (whether those cases were necessary is another conversation as miners only want the cheapest of electricity and they wont be paying domestic rates for it!).

So - to my point - it can be stipulated.

stockshares

Norwegian Air to accept BTC payments

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/norwegian-air-to-accept-bitcoin-open-exchange

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Absa freakin lootely.

A decentralized network infrastructure, yes. However, if you have any significant mining operation, there's no way that network operators aren't going to notice.

That's not correct. By-laws have been set down at municipal level to prevent crypto mining competing with domestic users for supply (whether those cases were necessary is another conversation as miners only want the cheapest of electricity and they wont be paying domestic rates for it!).

So - to my point - it can be stipulated.

No, you aren't addressing the point I was making. Of course we agree that a local or a national government can have laws and regulations to restrict crypto mining and detect large miners.

What I was saying is different though: at a global level it is almost impossible to control what kind of energy is used to mine bitcoins, and local regulations are just moving the problem elsewhere.

For exemple lets assume there was a developed crypto mining activity in Ireland and our government found it not to be environmental friendly enough. Of course it could find large miners and force them either to close down or not to use certain type of electric supplies.

But lets say at the same time a developing country in need of liquidities is running cheap coal power plans and starts mining at a fraction of the Irish cost (which is not competitive as environmental regulations mean higher mining cost).

What happens then is that mining moves to the dirty country. Ireland's energy footprint might have became more environmental friendly (good for us), but bitcoin's hasn't in the slightest (no difference for the world as a whole). So 95% of countries might have legislation to ban dirty crypto mining, if just another 5% don't have that kind of legislation and they are doing dirty mining at a cheaper cost, bitcoin will still use dirty electricity with no easy way around it except banning those countries from the network.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

What happens then is that mining moves to the dirty country. Ireland's energy footprint might have became more environmental friendly (good for us), but bitcoin's hasn't in the slightest (no difference for the world as a whole). So 95% of countries might have legislation to ban dirty crypto mining, if just another 5% don't have that kind of legislation and they are doing dirty mining at a cheaper cost, bitcoin will still use dirty electricity with no easy way around it except banning those countries from the network.

Ok, but the failures of governments are the failures of governments. That's not a failure of Bitcoin.

That's an argument that is ongoing anyway. The yanks often roll that one out....why should we agree to higher environmental standards when China and India continue to be far worse.

Other than that, is dirty coal actually cheaper than stranded hydro based power? Is it not a case that they're both just cheap???

Anyways, we've gone around the houses a bit - but the long and short of it is - that the energy debate isn't or doesn't have to be the shock/horror story that it constantly is presented to be.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but the failures of governments are the failures of governments. That's not a failure of Bitcoin.

That's an argument that is ongoing anyway. The yanks often roll that one out....why should we agree to higher environmental standards when China and India continue to be far worse.

I wouldn’t call it a failure but the combination of being fully decentralised and not very power efficient certainly is an issue with bitcoin which needs to be addressed for it to fully scale (and IMO blaming national governments is not a valid justification when the very idea of blockchain is to make it hard for governments or other institutions to control it). I am pretty sure energy efficiency will improve significantly overtime though, but right now it is a problem.
Also it would be a mistake not to differentiate intangible activity such as crypto mining from more tangible and immovable energy drains: Chinese produced electricity doesn’t power street lights in New York or run air conditioners in Miami, and likely never will; but assuming it is competitive and the Chinese government allows it, it could validate most crypto transactions within the US with no easy way for the US government to block it or regulate the environmental impact of these transactions (whereas they could do it for the street lights and air conditioners, or even for imported manufactured goods which they could impose duty on if they come from countries with lower environmental standards).

makeorbrake wrote: »

Other than that, is dirty coal actually cheaper than stranded hydro based power? Is it not a case that they're both just cheap???

Anyways, we've gone around the houses a bit - but the long and short of it is - that the energy debate isn't or doesn't have to be the shock/horror story that it constantly is presented to be.

Not a power generation expert here, but I’d say draw backs of hydroelectricity vs coal are that: 1) of course and most importantly the number of potential locations where you can set it up is limited and will never match the world electrical consumption 2) if in order to scale up it ends up being three gorges dam type of setups, not sure the environmental impact is that great 3) it is a lot less flexible to run and to match supply and demand (coal can run on demand and produce whatever you want between 0 and max capacity, hydro produces whatever the water flow allows)

But anyway won’t go much more into this as it is heading off topic.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

I wouldn’t call it a failure but the combination of being fully decentralised and not very power efficient certainly is an issue with bitcoin which needs to be addressed for it to fully scale

It being fully decentralized is the product/service at hand. For that, we should be prepared to appreciate the need for the energy input. I don't see any inklings (worth talking about) that will lead to a move away from PoW on the Bitcoin project.

Is power usage ideal? Of course not. However, there has to be proper consideration as to the need for that power and what it achieves in terms of the robust strength of network security. I'm also quite enthusiastic for a DLT based project which involves no mining whatsoever. However, were it to be used for the same purpose as BTC, it remains to be seen whether a government or some other bad actor could topple it.

Bob24 wrote: »

(and IMO blaming national governments is not a valid justification when the very idea of blockchain is to make it hard for governments or other institutions to control it).

Complete B/S! You and others scream about saving the planet - then that's all that is to be dealt with here. There's no handing over the keys to anyone (pun unintended). I already clarified - it's no secret if a miner sets up somewhere. Authorities that deal with energy use in a region can apply regulation on a local basis.

That's got NOTHING to do with governments finding it hard to deal with. The only thing that you have identified is that there isn't a variance in the Bitcoin mining eco-system. The variance is in national governments. That's for them to deal with.

Bob24 wrote: »

I am pretty sure energy efficiency will improve significantly overtime though, but right now it is a problem.

And an industry that lives or dies on just how cheap they can source energy is going to know a thing or two about energy efficiency. It's going to educate on that basis - and it already has done when it comes to the conventional data centre industry. Nobody acknowledges that.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also it would be a mistake not to differentiate immaterial activity such as crypto mining from more tangible and immovable energy drains:

Go and have a good run n jump for yerself with yer 'immaterial'. It's exactly this nonsense that people start off with in colouring their assessment of BTC energy use. The use is essential and as essential as anything else. That you fail to see the value in it - is an issue for yourself.

Bob24 wrote: »

Chinese produced electricity doesn’t power street lights in New York or run air conditioners in Miami, and likely never will; but assuming it is competitive and the Chinese government allows it, it could validate most crypto transactions in the US with no easy way for the US government to regulate the environmental impact of these transactions (whereas they could do it for the street lights and air conditioners, or even for imported manufactured goods which they could impose duty on if they come from countries with lower environmental standards).

So they can't figure out the inputs because its a global network? How very inconvenient for them. That's all I will say on that.

Bob24 wrote: »

Not a power generation expert here, but I’d say draw backs of hydroelectricity vs coal are that: 1) of course and most importantly the number of potential locations where you can set it up is limited and will never match the world electrical consumption 2) if in order to scale up it ends up being three gorges dam type of setups, not sure the environmental impact is that great 3) it is a lot less flexible to run and to match supply and demand (coal can run on demand and produce whatever you want between 0 and max capacity, hydro produces whatever the water flow allows)

And what of the sub-Saharan scheme in the desert being designed/built/funded completely within crypto circles to use solar ......in a place it couldn't conceivably be used by anything else? Hydro is the current front runner. Geothermal in Iceland is another. That's before we get to every oil and gas field on the planet that flames off energy with NO benefit. And those fossil fuel stations we're going to have for quite some time to come. How much energy do you think they waste every day? You reckon coal can run on demand??? Can you let that coal burning go out at any stage? There's a shed tonne of energy wasted at source. Co-location is being talked about (there might be a few pilots by now I think). It's a complete no brainer.

Other than that, where do people think these new ideas to drive greater energy efficiency are going to come from? (that's rhetorical just in case that's lost on anyone).

el diablo

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Interesting opinions.

Left of centre, factual information is rated as high, and they have a clean fact check record
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

Staying on the topic of crypto, they are "anti-crypto", in what way?

You need to look at who's behind mediabiasfactcheck.com. They also have an extreme leftist bias an are no more reliable that Snopes.

Here are a couple of Bitcoin/crypto related articles from that rag:

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/should-i-invest-bitcoin-dont-mr-money-moustache

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/24/bitcoin-currency-far-right-neo-nazis-cryptocurrencies

Dohnjoe

el diablo wrote: »

You need to look at who's behind mediabiasfactcheck.com. They also have an extreme leftist bias an are no more reliable that Snopes.

You seem to have a habit of trying to undermine information that clashes with your world views

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/15/should-i-invest-bitcoin-dont-mr-money-moustache

For a start that's an editorial piece from a blog. While I don't agree with every sentence, most of what's written there is bang on, not to mention cryptos collectively plummeting 60% to 99% in the year following the piece

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

It being fully decentralized is the product/service at hand. For that, we should be prepared to appreciate the need for the energy input. I don't see any inklings (worth talking about) that will lead to a move away from PoW on the Bitcoin project.

Is power usage ideal? Of course not. However, there has to be proper consideration as to the need for that power and what it achieves in terms of the robust strength of network security. I'm also quite enthusiastic for a DLT based project which involves no mining whatsoever. However, were it to be used for the same purpose as BTC, it remains to be seen whether a government or some other bad actor could topple it.



Complete B/S! You and others scream about saving the planet - then that's all that is to be dealt with here. There's no handing over the keys to anyone (pun unintended). I already clarified - it's no secret if a miner sets up somewhere. Authorities that deal with energy use in a region can apply regulation on a local basis.

That's got NOTHING to do with governments finding it hard to deal with. The only thing that you have identified is that there isn't a variance in the Bitcoin mining eco-system. The variance is in national governments. That's for them to deal with.


And an industry that lives or dies on just how cheap they can source energy is going to know a thing or two about energy efficiency. It's going to educate on that basis - and it already has done when it comes to the conventional data centre industry. Nobody acknowledges that.


Go and have a good run n jump for yerself with yer 'immaterial'. It's exactly this nonsense that people start off with in colouring their assessment of BTC energy use. The use is essential and as essential as anything else. That you fail to see the value in it - is an issue for yourself.


So they can't figure out the inputs because its a global network? How very inconvenient for them. That's all I will say on that.




And what of the sub-Saharan scheme in the desert being designed/built/funded completely within crypto circles to use solar ......in a place it couldn't conceivably be used by anything else? Hydro is the current front runner. Geothermal in Iceland is another. That's before we get to every oil and gas field on the planet that flames off energy with NO benefit. And those fossil fuel stations we're going to have for quite some time to come. How much energy do you think they waste every day? You reckon coal can run on demand??? Can you let that coal burning go out at any stage? There's a shed tonne of energy wasted at source. Co-location is being talked about (there might be a few pilots by now I think). It's a complete no brainer.

Other than that, where do people think these new ideas to drive greater energy efficiency are going to come from? (that's rhetorical just in case that's lost on anyone).

Just to clarify, when I wrote immaterial in my previous post I meant intangible ... unfortunate typo which I have fixed.

Besides that, yeah we pretty much disagree I think. For me, believing in the future of Bitcoin means being aware of the energy use and scalability issue and knowing it needs to be fixed. Since the network is decentralised and mining can be done remotely from anywhere in the word, I think it is a lack of foresight to purely put the burden on nation states to control Bitcoin’s energy consumption and carbon footprint. And again I am not saying bitcoin has no future here, but rather saying that for bitcoin to have one the overall community around it needs to acknowledge and address this challenge (many people do acknowledge it btw).

For now all this is under the radar because crypto and bitcoin adoption is still rather limited and the energy/environmental impact of running the network is not massive at the scale of the planet (although it is very large given the limited adoption). But you can be sure that if/when usage starts growing towards achieving full potential, then that environmental impact will start to attract attention and generate a lot of bad publicity for Bitcoin. And then, just saying “not bitcoin’s problem, nations states can regulate its power sources”, while knowing that it would be virtually impossible for any national regulations to have a material effect on the overall bitcoin energy mix* unless there is full international consensus to severely restrict mining, won’t serve bitcoin’s cause. Because the question will then be: if this thing can’t control its environmental impact and we can’t regulate it, is it time to stop it? (And the question won’t just be asked by governments or bitcoin bashers, but also by average citizens who are worried about the environmental impact and wondering if they should really use this technology eating up a lot of often dirty electricity at the other side of the world and about which no one seems to be able to do anything)

All this to say that from my perspective, not acknowledging that bitcoin has an energy consumption issue in the medium term is actually not acting in the interest of bitcoin growth and development; because if that problem isn’t solved it will eventually hinder further growth.


* because as I explained the economics behind bitcoin just mean mining will move to countries were operational cost is the cheapest, and for the most part environmental protection standards do increase operational cost.

cnocbui

Dohnjoe wrote: »

You seem to have a habit of trying to undermine information that clashes with your world views
...

At least you get irony.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

For me, believing in the future of Bitcoin means being aware of the energy use and scalability issue and knowing it needs to be fixed.

That's perfectly fine. However, you'll appreciate that it being 'fixed' is a monumental task when you're dealing with an already established project. Ethereum are trying to do it - but lets see. That kind of change is fundamental.

Bob24 wrote: »

Since the network is decentralised and mining can be done remotely from anywhere in the world, I think it is a lack of foresight to purely put the burden on nation states to control Bitcoin’s energy consumption and carbon footprint.

Bitcoin is not responsible for a particular nation state having a bonkers policy when it comes to filthy fuel sources. Remember, there's an issue with those plants regardless of where the output energy is being used.

Bob24 wrote: »

And again I am not saying bitcoin has no future here, but rather saying that for bitcoin to have one the overall community around it needs to acknowledge and address this challenge (many people do acknowledge it btw).

It depends on what you mean by 'acknowledge'. As per my previous post, I 'acknowledge' that its unfortunate that PoW implicates a huge energy input. However, what others don't acknowledge is what they get in return for that energy input.
In terms of any 'need to address', for sure, if it could operate without such a need, then they should change. But this is where the problem lies. Firstly, is it even possible to do so? We await what Ethereum come up with (and even if they successfully make that switch, its a different project in nature).
The next aspect - if you switch from PoW to PoS are you necessarily left with a network that can stand every single test that comes the way?....to the same degree? That remains to be seen.

The other approach is forget about Bitcoin and pursue a more worthy contender. I'm open to that notion but which project and does it really offer the same level of network security when it comes down to it? It's all very well for earlier stage projects to make big fat claims and another to demonstrate same in the wild - fully battle tested.

Bob24 wrote: »

But you can be sure that if/when usage starts growing towards achieving full potential, then that environmental impact will start to attract attention and generate a lot of bad publicity for Bitcoin.

This is already the case but it's my contention that there's a misrepresentation in the presentation of that complaint. Usually such complaints are pushed by those that have NO appreciation of what Bitcoin offers to start with. Secondly, it can all run off stranded renewable (and well beyond that of sister industry - data centres - it is to the tune of 74% right now).

Bob24 wrote: »

And then, just saying “not bitcoin’s problem, nations states can regulate its power sources”, while knowing that it would be virtually impossible for any national regulations to have a material effect on the overall bitcoin energy mix* unless there is full international consensus to severely restrict mining, won’t serve bitcoin’s cause.

I absolutely and fundamentally disagree with you on this. It's farsical. It doesn't matter what that energy is being used for from those coal burning plants - they are the problem. That nation state is the problem (and every other one that does the same).
The U.S. using China as an excuse not to enter in to climate accords - is the fault of both the U.S. and Chinese governments! If people want to express their ire, they should kindly direct it in the right direction.

Other than all of that, my understanding is that renewable based stranded power is still cheaper. Why else would there be new schemes coming on-line otherwise?

Bob24 wrote: »

if this thing can’t control its environmental impact and we can’t regulate it, is it time to stop it? (And the question won’t just be asked by governments or bitcoin bashers, but also by average citizens who are worried about the environmental impact and wondering if they should really use this technology eating up a lot of often dirty electricity at the other side of the world and about which no one seems to be able to do anything)

Firstly, nobody will be stopping jack. Secondly, the point being along the same lines, 'this thing' isn't mean't to 'control' its' anything. Bitcoin is not a company - its a protocol and a network.
The public would understand if they weren't being misinformed. However, as regards what can be done - stop buying cheap ****e from countries that support coal burning. But the issue here is that people don't like inconvenient responses, right?

Bob24 wrote: »

All this to say that from my perspective, not acknowledging that bitcoin has an energy consumption issue in the medium term is actually not acting in the interest of bitcoin growth and development; because if that problem isn’t solved it will eventually hinder further growth.

Once again, it depends on what you mean by 'acknowledge'. I recognize that BTC uses a shed tonne of energy, yes. I believe this can be engaged with positively - but you're coming at it the completely wrong end. You believe that Bitcoin can be 'fixed'. I believe that's a mistake and you may as well terminate your interest in the project today. What you are asking for is to break Bitcoin in reality (although inadvertently).
The need to shut down coal burning plants was recognized long before Bitcoin came on the scene. That remains the case right now. Focus on the right problem.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

I 'acknowledge' that its unfortunate that PoW implicates a huge energy input. However, what others don't acknowledge is what they get in return for that energy input.

Sorry, just to jump in here..

Indeed, but what do we really get for all that energy use?

Le'ts be frank, the answer is a speculative trading token. If it disappeared tomorrow there'd be no impact on public, business, industry, government. Is all that energy use justified? even if it's renewable, that still costs - investment, cost, upkeep, it's not completely free

In an energy conscious world, it does look like a bit of an oddity. The optics aren't great - a Rune Goldberg invention that consumes gallons of power but doesn't do much at all.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, but what do we really get for all that energy use?

If you don't see the power in an immutable decentralized borderless network, then no amount of discourse from me is going to change your view. Personally, for me - its worth backing.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Le'ts be frank, the answer is a speculative trading token.

Lets be frank. If you think that's all thats at play here, then do your part for the environment and stop trading it. Lets not be hypocritical.
I do speculate in it - but long before I ever considered it as some way to accrue wealth, I bought into Bitcoin (literally) for what it was then and what it can be and what it will be.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

If it disappeared tomorrow there'd be no impact on public, business, industry, government.

If it disappeared tomorrow, nobody would realize the impact - agree with you there - in that they have not seen the full power of it yet - that impact.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Is all that energy use justified?

If the proposition is properly understood, then absa-freakin-lootely.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

even if it's renewable, that still costs - investment, cost, upkeep, it's not completely free

If the crypto mining sector designs/builds/funds its own projects, then that's there business. There is so much other energy waste going on - yet this one gets singled out because the proposition is misrepresented.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

In an energy conscious world, it does look like a bit of an oddity. The optics aren't great - a Rune Goldberg invention that consumes gallons of power but doesn't do much at all.

If that's what you truly believe, then make a commitment today then to stop speculating on cryptocurrencies. Sh1t or get off the pot.

And if you light up december nights with christmas lights, the optics don't look good on that either.


And just to add - this comes from someone who was driving electric in rural Ireland for 4 years before I left the country a couple of years ago.

cnocbui

If banks would allow people to have BTC accounts and convert into the local fiat for a minor fee on the scale of IBAN transfers, can you imagine the utility? You could send money internationally without the unnecessary financial fees parasitism so prevalent currently. The problem isn't that BTC inherently has low utility it's that the existing financial regimes are preventing it from having the enormous utility it otherwise might.

No doubt people will scream about terrorist financing and money laundering, but that is just a game of whack-a-mole. I have lost count of the number of times I have not made investments because of the money laundering nonsense. I suspect that if it was all put to bed and the government just introduce a tiny financial transaction fee, the increase in economic activity would be considerable and their revenues would dwarf the money laundering loses.

Fighting money laundering has been just as successful as the war on drugs and likewise has a slew of pernicious consequences. Just look at the US states that have legalised marijuana - they are absolutely swamped with so much revenue they hardly know what to do with it.

Remember when Charlie McCreevy reduced taxes? The states revenue take actually went up because it became less worthwhile avoiding it. Revenue just loves to choke the chicken. DIRT being a prime example of their endless ideological idiocy. Recently the >expletive<s recommended a reduction in DIRT because it was having the desired effect of dissuading people from saving and having positive bank balances so the revenue take was going down. How thick do you have to be to have something as stupid as DIRT when you have a problem with your banks liquidity?

makeorbrake

cnocbui wrote: »

If banks would allow people to have BTC accounts and convert into the local fiat for a minor fee on the scale of IBAN transfers, can you imagine the utility?

You won't get that type of innovation from a traditional bank - far from it. However, they are getting truly kicked in the nuts by fintech upstarts - and that theme is going to be ongoing for the next few years. One European bank - SolarisBank - offer an account with both Euro and Crypto side by side.

cnocbui wrote: »

The problem isn't that BTC inherently has low utility it's that the existing financial regimes are preventing it from having the enormous utility it otherwise might.

It has the finest of utility. The issue is twofold. It needs to be made as user friendly as what people currently use to garner mass appeal. Bitcoin not being an organization or company also means there is no coordinated pimping going on. That's why Libra is interesting - they have the reach with 2.4 Billion users - and whilst it will be a sh1tcoin, it can be the crypto gateway drug.
Other than that, I expect the user experience to advance leaps n' bounds over the next few years.

cnocbui wrote: »

No doubt people will scream about terrorist financing and money laundering, but that is just a game of whack-a-mole. I have lost count of the number of times I have not made investments because of the money laundering nonsense. I suspect that if it was all put to bed and the government just introduce a tiny financial transaction fee, the increase in economic activity would be considerable and their revenues would dwarf the money laundering loses.

It's a nonsense and complete misnomer that needs to be rolled back entirely. Speaking of the user experience, KYC/AML destroys that in and of itself - before you even get to the technical aspects of transacting crypto.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you don't see the power in an immutable decentralized borderless network, then no amount of discourse from me is going to change your view. Personally, for me - its worth backing.

Indeed, I guess I am a total pragmatist on the issue then

BTC is really only used for trading/speculating. That isn't an essential service. It consumes energy, but doesn't produce anything of key value to the public/business/government

Where it has been key is laying the groundwork for decentralised services, tokens, businesses, stable-coins (that could be used as alternative currencies in imploding economies) - that's great, but all of that is independent of BTC now

Of course, I still believe BTC has the potential to be worth a lot in the future - but only due to herd psychology and increased global acceptance as a speculative financial trading asset

If that's what you truly believe, then make a commitment today then to stop speculating on cryptocurrencies. Sh1t or get off the pot.

I agree with most of the rest of what you say, as for the above, I bought Bitcoin because I was speculating on other people paying more for it than I did. I know this is a bit sharp to say, but a lot more people in the world don't understand economics/finance/currencies than do.

Likewise I invested in e.g. Nano, not because I believe in it (it's doomed as a currency due to it's inherently flawed fixed supply) but because I believe other people, who don't recognise that flaw, of which there are many, will pay more for it than I did in the future

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

If banks would allow people to have BTC accounts and convert into the local fiat for a minor fee on the scale of IBAN transfers, can you imagine the utility? You could send money internationally without the unnecessary financial fees parasitism so prevalent currently. The problem isn't that BTC inherently has low utility it's that the existing financial regimes are preventing it from having the enormous utility it otherwise might.

Yup but banks are catching onto this. TIPS is a system on trial in Europe where bank transfers are virtually feeless and almost instant.

Perceived utility isn't even essential, the day your grandmother can walk up to her local branch, tell them she wants some Bitcoin, she hands over cash, and they buy it for her, hold it, service it and insure it (as an investment asset, like shares, bonds, etc) - that's the day it could really spike up in value

cnocbui

Europe copying Australia with TIPS then. Without an international element it misses the biggie. This country is so retarded when it comes to banking I wonder that it functions at all. A few years ago I couldn't electronically transfer a large sum of money from one bank to another, I had to physically walk into one bank and get a bank cheque then walk into another and deposit it. Unreal.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Indeed, I guess I am a total pragmatist on the issue then

That's curious as the pragmatic view is one I hold - yet we're on different ends of this discussion...go figure.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

BTC is really only used for trading/speculating.

If you think that this is all BTC is about, then do the environment a favour and pack in your speculative trading today.

BTC is about far more than that. In fact, to those that are actively working with the technology, it's just a distraction and a side show. Yes, you can point to stats as to what percentage of activity is related to the speculative end right now. However, people have to see a bit further ahead than the end of their noses.
Money is a form of communication in its most basic representation. It's the cornerstone of civilisation and human activity. Some people think that Bitcoin has achieved nothing in 10 years. I believe its current position is an exceptional achievement in that timeframe. I also believe that its growth and utility will continue. There has to be a recognition of that. You can't just assess something that attempts to disrupt something so fundamental and do so expecting mass market adoption at the drop of a hat. That's unreasonable. Therefore, the network is justified as it is today - based on the expected value it will be to society now and in the future.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Where it has been key is laying the groundwork for decentralised services, tokens, businesses, stable-coins (that could be used as alternative currencies in imploding economies) - that's great, but all of that is independent of BTC now

All owed to and built upon that original innovation, yes. You think it's innovation is done with and we can take it round the back of the shed and put it down now? I don't believe it's done yet. And I don't believe that there is a ready contender that does specifically what it purports to do in the way that it does it - and to the level of network security and strength.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Of course, I still believe BTC has the potential to be worth a lot in the future - but only due to herd psychology and increased global acceptance as a speculative financial trading asset

The speculative aspect of it is just one element of the overall picture for me - but we all have our own thoughts/beliefs on these things..which is fine.

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I bought Bitcoin because I was speculating on other people paying more for it than I did. I know this is a bit sharp to say, but a lot more people in the world don't understand economics/finance/currencies than do.

I don't have an issue with your speculation - you're fully at liberty to do that and you're a grown adult who knows the risks/benefits/etc that goes with that.
On understanding economics/finance/currencies, I claim ignorance. However, I do see utility in unconfiscatable money and I do see utility in doing away with the friction that governments and banking currently have us caught up in (which will be possible should the eco-system be able to expand out its reach a bit more). I do see the value in financial privacy (enabled with the correct application/use). I also see the use in a store of value that is borderless.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

I recognize that BTC uses a shed tonne of energy, yes. I believe this can be engaged with positively - but you're coming at it the completely wrong end. You believe that Bitcoin can be 'fixed'. I believe that's a mistake and you may as well terminate your interest in the project today. What you are asking for is to break Bitcoin in reality (although inadvertently).
The need to shut down coal burning plants was recognized long before Bitcoin came on the scene. That remains the case right now. Focus on the right problem.

The disagreements have been clearly expressed and I don’t think there is a need for another long post. But just on this point, I don’t get why you seem to say there are 2 mutually exclusive “ends” to look at the issue. When I say that bitcoin has an energy consumption problem which needs to be addressed, I am not saying that dirty energy isn’t a problem or that more clean energy shouldn’t be developed. For me both of those “ends” of the equation (reduce energy consumption and develop cleaner energy) are correct ones to look at and aren’t mutually exclusive. And it happens that for the first one the onus is on the bitcoin community and the second one it is on nation states.

And btw I know this is long term but since mining rewards will eventually stop, not optimising the efficiency of the transaction validation mechanism is also a threat to the economics of bitcoin (if miners have a high electricity cost to validate transactions are a not getting mining rewards anymore, transaction fees will have to skyrocket). So saying that optimising the transaction validation process is theoretically not possible is almost forecasting the eventual decline of bitcoin.

Dohnjoe

cnocbui wrote: »

Europe copying Australia with TIPS then. Without an international element it misses the biggie. This country is so retarded when it comes to banking I wonder that it functions at all. A few years ago I couldn't electronically transfer a large sum of money from one bank to another, I had to physically walk into one bank and get a bank cheque then walk into another and deposit it. Unreal.

Yup, but fast, low fee international transfers will be in the pipeline. That's a bizarre situation having to walk from one bank to another, never heard of that

Blockchain, DLT and smart contracts tech is being adopted by banks to speed up and streamline current processes, including, no doubt, faster xborder instructions in the future

Dohnjoe

Well Justin Sun was too sick to attend the Thursday Buffet lunch, but went out to a Tron event that night

I'm not into the witch-hunt stuff, and I even own some Tron (lol) but this guy is just taking the piss now

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

But just on this point, I don’t get why you seem to say there are 2 mutually exclusive “ends” to look at the issue.

There is when what I'm seeing consistently is ban it. Why should it be banned because governments cant get their sh1t together?

Bob24 wrote: »

When I say that bitcoin has an energy consumption problem which needs to be addressed, I am not saying that dirty energy isn’t a problem or that more clean energy shouldn’t be developed. For me both of those “ends” of the equation (reduce energy consumption and develop cleaner energy) are correct ones to look at and aren’t mutually exclusive. And it happens that for the first one the onus is on the bitcoin community and the second one it is on nation states.

No. Bitcoin miners go with sheer latent market economics. When your governments subsidise or otherwise pimp dirty coal, then some miners are going to avail of that. It's as clear as night and day.

Bob24 wrote: »

And btw I know this is long term but since mining rewards will eventually stop, not optimising the efficiency of the transaction validation mechanism is also a threat to the economics of bitcoin (if miners have a high electricity cost to validate transactions are a not getting mining rewards anymore, transaction fees will have to skyrocket).

2141? Eh, its far, far too early to have that conversation!

Bob24 wrote: »

So saying that optimising the transaction validation process is theoretically not possible is almost forecasting the eventual decline of bitcoin.

You're not talking about an 'optimization' though. You're talking about something else entirely. In which case, you're left with something else entirely.

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Yup, but fast, low fee international transfers will be in the pipeline. That's a bizarre situation having to walk from one bank to another, never heard of that

It's funny what's going on out there in the banking world. That's the case where Im currently located. If you want to pay someone who has an account with a different bank, you have to walk the money in to said bank!

On the Europeans and on Swift - you're seeing that come through with the Europeans because they can see the writing on the wall. Swift - that crooked system has made banks gazillions - they don't want to give it up but they will change now due to pressures coming from the blockchain space. So a big thank you to blockchain tech for that.