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

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

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!

Bizarre, never heard of this before.

Banking is extremely complex, take an average bank, there will be 10's of thousands of movements per day between internal and external accounts - all the cash is moved digitally so each has to be accounted for, and fall under regulatory and compliance rules. Generally, the best way to do it is in batches, with a lot of netting. Then each currency will have it's own deadline, and all the batches have to be compliant with that. On top of that, each bank has to communicate with other banks, that use a myriad of alternative systems, each with it's own setup and agreements, it's own set of processes. We can move hundreds of millions cross border in nanoseconds on one system, but another might take 30 minutes because it needs confirmations from cash correspondents (who will be running their own batches)

It is nightmareishly complex because cash can't disappear, every cent has to be accounted for, and to be fully compliant

Swift is simply a messaging system for banks, which is still in use around the world, because it (again) is fiendishly difficult for a bank to change all it's communications systems to another system, whilst still retaining and having to account for other banks using Swift

The issue isn't belligerence - it's complexity. And that's where blockchain tech comes in, especially smart contracts and a central distributed ledger. But again, that is going to take time, it has to be absolutely waterproof.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

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.

And as I said governments developing cleaner energy is not contradictory with optimising the way bitcoin transactions are validated to reduce energy consumption. It is not either one or the other.

Also the question is: what is the end goal here from your perspective and what is the realistic way to achieve it?

For me the end goal is to control bitcoin’s environmental impact so that it can scale and grow. And the realistic way I see of doing that is to make the transaction validation process more energy efficient (since due to the market economics rule you mention above, we know it is impossible for individual governments or any other entity to influence and clean the bitcoin energy mix).

makeorbrake wrote: »

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

Far too early only if you assume that bitcoin price inflation will equal or exceed rewards halving for the next hundred years (ie each time halving occurs the price has doubled compared to the previous halving). You might be comfortable with that assumption but it isn’t one I am making. Plus it’s never too early for theoretical discussions.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

And as I said governments developing cleaner energy is not contradictory with optimising the way bitcoin transactions are validated to reduce energy consumption. It is not either one or the other.

Once again, you talk of an 'optimisation'. That's not the case for what you propose. You're effectively scrapping it - in which case, to those who take that view right now - get your mits off. And other than that - governments NOT using filthy coal and using it cheaply - is the solution to the problem anyway.

Using it is one thing but using it at a filthy cheap price to match is the issue. Put some tax on it or stop doing it....and Bitcoin miners self correct to finding the cheapest conceivable renewable source.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also the question is: what is the end goal here from your perspective and what is the realistic way to achieve it?

For me the end goal is to control bitcoin’s environmental impact so that it can scale and grow. And the realistic way I see of doing that is to make the transaction validation process more energy efficient.

Your approach is flawed. You want to tear down Bitcoin and replace it with something else. Fine if it works but there is NO such guarantee. The Bitcoin network needs to have such strength in depth that any of the superpowers can't drag that network down. That means not any old network will do.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Your approach is flawed. You want to tear down Bitcoin and replace it with something else. Fine if it works but there is NO such guarantee. The Bitcoin network needs to have such strength in depth that any of the superpowers can't drag that network down. That means not any old network will do.

I might be wrong, but I like to believe Bitcoin is not a religion and the algorithm is not an immutable sacred text. It can be amended and/or built upon to optimise transaction validation, without necessarily altering its functionality or its status.

Of course we agree trust and stability are key, so any major change will take time and needs to be carefully thought through. But it doesn’t mean nothing can change.

Also what is your approach then to make bitcoin environmentally scalable if you refuse to try and change to the algorithm (or build other tools over it) to make it more energy efficient?

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

I might be wrong, but I like to believe Bitcoin is not a religion

I don't think anyone mentioned anything about religion.

Bob24 wrote: »

It can be amended and/or built upon to optimise transaction validation, without necessarily altering its functionality or its status.

If it can, then I'm all in. But that's a very big IF right now. So, if it can't , i'm quite happy it runs as is - but with it heading towards 100% renewable. If some government throws ridiculously cheap dirty energy in front of its nose, how is that Bitcoins fault. Bitcoin doesn't have to be punished for the bad judgement and decision making of governments.

Bob24 wrote: »

Of course we agree trust and stability are key, so any major change will take time and needs to be carefully thought through. But it doesn’t mean nothing can change.

It definitely doesn't mean nothing can change. But change on that type of project - between the technicals and the governance model - you're talking years. In the meantime, people either get used to 74% renewable usage or if they're not happy with that, they get their damn governments in line and it can easily go to 100% renewable.

Bob24 wrote: »

Also what is your approach then to make bitcoin environmentally scalable if you refuse to try and change to the algorithm (or build other tools over it) to make it more energy efficient?

As above. I'm more than open to changes but perhaps they will never come. They should certainly not come if they involve a compromise. However, over and above that, get governments doing their job on energy policy and get out of the way. Because putting cheap filthy power in the mix IS standing in the way.

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, over and above that, get governments doing their job on energy policy and get out of the way. Because putting cheap filthy power in the mix IS standing in the way.

Thing is, if you are waiting for every single government in the world to restrict crypto mining to clean energy, you might be waiting for a long time (even in the very unlikely event of all world governments agreeing to spend whatever it takes and go all in with renewable lets say within the next five years, we don’t even know if it would be possible to cover the current global energy consumption - not just crypto - with truly clean energy using the current technology). This is why I don’t see this as a realistic approach if the goal really is to let bitcoin scale without environmental constraints becoming a show stopper somewhere on the way. It would be valid if plentiful, cheap and clean energy was something we has in sight and we know could be achieved in the short to medium term. But this really isn’t the case.

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

Thing is, if you are waiting for every single government in the world to restrict crypto mining to clean energy, you might be waiting for a long time

Governments are useless - I get it.

Bob24 wrote: »

(even in the very unlikely event of all world governments agreeing to spend whatever it takes and go all in with renewable lets say within the next five years, we don’t even know if it would be possible to cover the current global energy consumption - not just crypto - with truly clean energy using the current technology).

Right. And you get the bit where Bitcoin miners access stranded power, right? So - the whole world could be actively engaged in going renewable - bitcoin doesn't have to compete with that. Stranded power is no earthly use to anyone else.

Bob24 wrote: »

This is why I don’t see this as a realistic approach if the goal really is to let bitcoin scale without environmental constraints becoming a show stopper somewhere on the way. It would be valid if plentiful, cheap and clean energy was something we has in sight and we know could be achieved in the short to medium term. But this really isn’t the case.

Then I don't think you have an appreciation of what 'stranded' power is.

q85dw7osi4lebg

*unfollows thread

sexmag

Gerald Obedient Manicurist wrote: »

*unfollows thread

Yeah I was gonna say, ye lads are really ruining the fun here with your back and forth

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Governments are useless - I get it.


Right. And you get the bit where Bitcoin miners access stranded power, right? So - the whole world could be actively engaged in going renewable - bitcoin doesn't have to compete with that. Stranded power is no earthly use to anyone else.


Then I don't think you have an appreciation of what 'stranded' power is.

Certainly not all crypto mining, and if you are taking about hydropower in southern China, we can discuss the environmental impact in another thread but it isn’t great.

Also Bitcoin currently consumes the same amount of electricity an average sized European country does, i.e. 0.3% of global electricity consumption.

Can I ask if you have these consumption figures in mind when we talk about scaling?

If yes ask yourself: what would you consider to be a success for bitcoin in terms of usage growth over the next 5 years?

For me, I would say a tenfold growth in usage would be a moderate success and a hundredfold growth would be a great success.

And now think of the electricity consumption again and do the maths: what kind of percentage of global electricity consumption do you get for your great success scenario? And is there any chance of this running off clean energy or being acceptable to the world population?

makeorbrake

Bob24 wrote: »

And is there any chance of this running off clean energy or being acceptable to the world population?

Let me try and keep this short and wrap this up as the natives are getting restless. The important thing here is NOBODY is going to find anything acceptable when the whole debate is mischaracterised as it continues to be day in, day out. The constant articles with uses same energy input as <name your country> - dropped in without context.

You've now moved away from doubting stranded power to criticizing there not being enough of it to meet a growing need and then concerns over specific hydro usage and the integrity of it.. The bottom line here is that stranded power can be used and is being used. The focus should go on manipulating the situation so that this is all that is used. This is what we use governments for. I don't like the crooks but I accept that we have to have them...and decentralised systems or not, they're still our governments too (crypto community). So - is it so bad to ask them to do their bloody jobs? Other than that, you think that growth is linear and that 2nd layer isn't going to be a major part of that? Then I would disagree...meaning your calcs are way off.

<Lads, if he responds, I'll be responding - simple as - so you can impress on him to NOT respond if you wish>

stockshares

sexmag wrote: »

Yeah I was gonna say, ye lads are really ruining the fun here with your back and forth

Windbags

Bob24

makeorbrake wrote: »

Let me try and keep this short and wrap this up as the natives are getting restless. The important thing here is NOBODY is going to find anything acceptable when the whole debate is mischaracterised as it continues to be day in, day out. The constant articles with uses same energy input as <name your country> - dropped in without context.

You've now moved away from doubting stranded power to criticizing there not being enough of it to meet a growing need and then concerns over specific hydro usage and the integrity of it.. The bottom line here is that stranded power can be used and is being used. The focus should go on manipulating the situation so that this is all that is used. This is what we use governments for. I don't like the crooks but I accept that we have to have them...and decentralised systems or not, they're still our governments too (crypto community). So - is it so bad to ask them to do their bloody jobs? Other than that, you think that growth is linear and that 2nd layer isn't going to be a major part of that? Then I would disagree...meaning your calcs are way off.

<Lads, if he responds, I'll be responding - simple as - so you can impress on him to NOT respond if you wish>

Here’s what I suggest: let’s park this discussion for 5 years. We can check the score then and if by then bitcoin’s energy consumption hasn’t been optimised, usage has increased by at least fifty times, and there is no significant struggle with power usage and environmental impact, then I’ll gladly agree I was wrong and significant growth was possible with no power consumption optimisation. Otherwise I’ll just remind you of my point, and in the meantime this thread can resume normal business :-)

JohnnyFlash

The Bitfinex case is back before the courts today. Any theories on what might happen?

cnocbui

Some lawyers will make even more money.

sexmag

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

The Bitfinex case is back before the courts today. Any theories on what might happen?

So he extended it?

Surely if there was a clear cut problem he would order them to turn over docs and have the case heard properly?

Allowing them to continue as normal again would make people assume that the prosecution dont have enough evidence (a this time anyway) to really take them down. White collar crime in the states, particularly when it comes to money is the holy grail of cases. Judges love to make an example of people "stealing" from the government or people

stockshares

Lads the volume on most of the trading pairs on Binance seems very low.

I'm not sure whether I'm reading the volume correctly

Are the quoted Volumes of the Trading Pairs in the screenshot the total currently active trades?

Bob24

Another Tether related pessimist: https://bitcoinist.com/tether-behind-bitcoins-4000-to-13800-bull-rally-analyst/

But while some of what he says is correct and I do have doubts about Tether, I think his rationale is completely flawed because it is based on the assumption that every single Tether is produced out of thin air and there is no USD behind it (which is extremely unlikely).

Bob24

This customer information theft issue is starting to look pretty bad for Binance: https://www.coindesk.com/binance-kyc-issue

If some users are in the EU, it also seems to fairly clearly fall under the scope of GDPR.

sexmag

Bob24 wrote: »

This customer information theft issue is starting to look pretty bad for Binance: https://www.coindesk.com/binance-kyc-issue

If some users are in the EU, it also seems to fairly clearly fall under the scope of GDPR.

If anyone here is part of this hack they can obtain a pretty penny from binance due to the GDPR breach

sexmag

sexmag wrote: »

If anyone here is part of this hack they can obtain a pretty penny from binance due to the GDPR breach

Gets stranger

https://startupfortune.com/blockchain/binance-offers-25-bitcoin-for-any-information-to-fight

Binance saying "Theres no leak,nothing to worry about but we will give you quarter mill if you can give us information on it"????

Bob24

sexmag wrote: »

Gets stranger

https://startupfortune.com/blockchain/binance-offers-25-bitcoin-for-any-information-to-fight

Binance saying "Theres no leak,nothing to worry about but we will give you quarter mill if you can give us information on it"????

I don’t know how reliable that is, but coindesk are saying they were able to independently verify with someone that a one of the leaked pictures was indeed theirs.

What it’s looking like now is that data might have been stolen from a contractor they used for KYC onboarding.

Bob24

A lot more information about the Binance hack here (they say they have talked directly to the hacker) - looks like a dirty insider job and possibly liked to last May’s coins theft: https://www.coindesk.com/a-bitcoin-extortion-gone-wrong-inside-binances-negotiations-with-its-kyc-hacker

If what’s written in there is true, Binance was very badly exposed for a while and there could be even more consequences.

Dohnjoe

sexmag wrote: »

Gets stranger

https://startupfortune.com/blockchain/binance-offers-25-bitcoin-for-any-information-to-fight

Binance saying "Theres no leak,nothing to worry about but we will give you quarter mill if you can give us information on it"????

It makes sense, they want info on who is doing this - a reward helps

Also Binance wouldn't necessarily know if info was stolen, e.g. someone could take KYC photos from another site or as part of a scam, and if they match some on Binance, then it could seem as if there was a direct breach

Binance and other exchanges really need to explain any actions they take as if they are speaking to 5 year olds, because the crypto community runs wild with theories and misunderstandings and speculation every time something like this happens

JohnnyFlash

BTC dominance about to hit 70%. There’s life in the old icecap melter yet, lads. Doesn’t look like ‘alt season’ is coming anytime soon.

stockshares

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

BTC dominance about to hit 70%. There’s life in the old icecap melter yet, lads. Doesn’t look like ‘alt season’ is coming anytime soon.

318 Addresses hold 80% of Tether
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/tether-mafia-318-crypto-addresses-control-most-of-stablecoin

cnocbui

That article rather serves to show bitcoin in a good light, with ownership being far less concentrated, with potentially there being over 20,000 bitcoin millionaires.

stockshares

cnocbui wrote: »

That article rather serves to show bitcoin in a good light, with ownership being far less concentrated, with potentially there being over 20,000 bitcoin millionaires.

it shows it in a good light in relation to tether but the Tether situation is bad for crypto overall.

it also shows that rather than wealth being evenly spread a large concentration of bitcoin is in the hands of a few. Nothing really changes

cnocbui

Just the same as fiat then, yep, nothing changes.

You can and do see such concentrations in ownership of equities, too.

I'm not a day trader so am not hugely concerned about tether and it's surrounding shenanigans.

Bob24

stockshares wrote: »

318 Addresses hold 80% of Tether
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-07/tether-mafia-318-crypto-addresses-control-most-of-stablecoin

A stable coin mirroring USD price, which for the most part is used as a dollar alternative on exchanges which don’t offer fiat trading, is mostly held by a couple of large exchanges.

This doesn’t seem like a big surprise?