When someone solves the death problem with another electronic currency, then all prior electronic currencies will be obsolete.
The 'death problem" is not an issue for those who know how to control their private keys. Bitcoin has first mover advantage, name recognition and network effect. It’ll be very difficult for another digital currency to take its place.
Private key would generally be written down and stored in a safe deposit box. But a “brain wallet” is best if you can somehow remember your private key seed words.
The problem, as I see it, is that over time people would lose faith in such a system.
Full disclosure: I am currently a no-coiner, but I do enjoy reading about the technology and associated philosophical debates.
“Creating a single token requires as much electricity as the typical American house consumes in two years.”
“The total network of computers comprising the Bitcoin network consumes as much energy each year as some medium-sized countries.”
Haven’t heard of Burton Malkiel but perhaps he’s just awoken from a five year coma. His Wall Street contemporaries have brought this same point up countless times over the last several years. How much energy does the banking system use?
According to this article, banking uses 100 TW annually and Bitcoin used about 30 TW in 2017.
It seems from what I read elsewhere that only about 100 Million people own bitcoin (or have wallets to own it) as opposed to maybe greater than 4 Billion people in the traditional banking system. Bitcoin is not really used as a method of frequent exchange right now also. If it was, that energy consumption would rise exponentially. The banking system’s energy consumption would dwarf in comparison.
You still have 26% percent of Bitcoin mining energy from non-renewable sources (maybe more, I’m unsure if some of that 74% is carbon credits). Alongside that, some of this 74% could be used to power some of the current banking systems transactions if it were not being dedicated to Bitcoin or used for other beneficial purposes.
It seems a bit off to me that some of the silicon valley investors that are most concerned about their carbon footprint (or other peoples) are the ones that are most positive about Bitcoin. As regards people that are not majorly pushing carbon footprint arguments I don’t have an issue with them advocating Bitcoin.
It’s a silly argument (mining bitcoin consuming a lot of energy). How much energy is consumed by precious metals mining? What about the environmental consequences? And what about useless financial services (eg. derivatives and derivatives of derivatives, sub prime mortgages etc) which require a huge amount of real estate and energy to operate?
Yes, you’re correct, the parasitic financial sector has a lot to answer to, warming up CPUs just to move digits that may be valuable is just another one to add to the list of useless parasitic activities that do nothing for humanity.
The best global currency would be one based on something physical and unchanging, like the diameter of the planet in millimetres, one unit per mm.
the quantity being fixed for eternity, that would force economists to think very carefully about their flow up/trickle down economics.
there’s a whole other story here with this too …
New York’s investigation of cryptocurrency Tether hits fresh delay
It’s bullshit and there was no double spend. Some entity is spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) so they can buy in at a lower price.
That’s 1 possibility.
Why are you so anti-bitcoin, snaps?
If Bitcoin was used by 4 billion people as a method of frequent exchange, the energy usage would rise exponentially. It’s currently used infrequently by less than 2.5% of that amount of people. My argument was against Silicon Valley investors disregarding this fact and pumping up Bitcoin while also advising everyone to cut their carbon footprint. I didn’t mention gold. I don’t often hear them advocating for it. Also, those useless derivatives do come under the banking industry’s remit which again uses less than 100 TW annually.
It could be pointed out that the mining/drilling of the oil and metals that need to go into the servers required for bitcoin mining, along with their manufacturing, transport and the temperature control of the server farms additionally creates a massive carbon footprint.
In any case, the argument was against the hypocrisy of the silicon valley investors advocating for bitcoin as being the future, while they are also against anything that has a big carbon footprint. The banking industry as it currently stands uses energy far more efficiently than bitcoin would if it was doing a comparable task.
I don’t think I am “anti” bitcoin (or any digital currency), I’m critical.
Everyone should have some level of criticism. If you don’t you should perhaps ask yourself why not?
I’m fully aware that Bitcoin and other cryptos have their drawbacks and are certainly not immune from criticism. Do you believe crypto have any positive aspects?
Yep. They do. And, in the future they most certainly will.
I’m not convinced bitcoin or the other existing cryptos currencies are the ultimate solution.
I was looking up the early founders of this current wave of crypto currencies.
Often the founders have noble intentions…
…and as we can see
During the last year of his life, the Finneys received anonymous calls demanding an extortion fee of 1,000 bitcoin. They became victims of swatting – a hoax “where the perpetrator calls up emergency dispatch using a spoofed telephone number and pretends to have committed a heinous crime in the hopes of provoking an armed police response to the victim’s home”.
…unfortunately criminal types can get involved, and ruin it.