• Fur Affinity Forums are governed by Fur Affinity's Rules and Policies. Links and additional information can be accessed in the Site Information Forum.

How many furries know what Bitcoin is?

Do you know what Bitcoin is?

  • Yes.

  • I have heard of it but don't really know much.

  • Isn't it like, a dark web thing?

  • Never heard of it.


Results are only viewable after voting.

Rassah

Well-Known Member
It’s the reason I hate new graphic cards coz they’re all sold out by people mining.
Bitcoin has nothing to do with graphics cards. You can't mine Bitcoin with graphics cards. It's all the copycat and scam coins that use those.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
I see some claims that Bitcoin is lower emissions than say Gold mining.
Emissions of Bitcoin vs other things like gold mining
Seems that Bitcoin operations are responsible for more emissions than gold mining annually:
View attachment 109630

I stand by my initial statement that bitcoin is a digital currency that is yet another capitally driven machination that really on a large scale has the net benefit of adding yet another vector of destruction to the climate.

Nope, it's less than gold mining, by a lot.
Worse, your source digiconomist is the source for a lot of Bitcoin energy use claims, and it's been debunked years ago https://medium.com/crescofin/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7
So your initial statement is based on flawed data, and also ignores the massive problems caused by the current system that Bitcoin is aiming to fix. Like, for example, do you think one trillion dollars worth of energy and resources is a lot to waste? How about two trillion? That's what our US military did when it just "lost" that money on accounting errors. Did anyone who is concerned about energy even peep about it? Not really. But that's exactly what bitcoin will solve.

It's worth noting that the disparity in opinions may be because BitCoin, by its nature, is a finite resource. The more that gets mined, the longer it takes to mine the same amount. This translates directly into more energy and more emissions.
That's not how that works. The amount of bitcoin mined has nothing to do with how long it takes to mine or how much energy it uses. Mining isn't even done to create bitcoin, it's done to secure a financial network. We now spend $2 billion to secure a $1 trillion financial network, which is a pretty good deal. The new coins, along with transaction fees, just goes to pay those miners for the work of verifying transactions and securing the network. When all bitcoins have been mined, miners will still exist, continuing to mine in exchange for those transaction fees. The only reason bitcoin uses more and more energy is because the network is more and more valuable. But that doesn't translate into more emissions either, because bitcoin tries to find the cheapest energy available, so it's pretty much always just waste energy we would've thrown away anyway. Like unused hydro power, or geothermal, or even vented gas at oil drill sites, which is generated but then just thrown away. So if bitcoin was to suddenly disappear, all that energy use would still be there. It would just be dumped and thrown away.

Anyone with the space and knowledge to set up a home server can start mining BitCoin, and the outlay is much much lower.

You need at least $10,000 for just one specialized mining commuter, and a very good deal on electricity to just break even. Current average electricity prices for home use are $0.13 per kWh. Bitcoin miners are using electricity that costs $0.03 or less. So if you actually wanted to mine Bitcoin and make any money, you would need knowledge, at least $50,000 in equipment plus equipment to hook it up, monitor it (those miners have to be connected to a regular server with a good internet connection), equipment to cool it, and a space that will let you store it and provide you with very cheap source of electricity, which would probably cost you another $50,000 to lease for a year. Plus ongoing costs of electricity, internet, and someone to keep an eye on it. In other words it's a very competitive and pricey business that not just anyone can start in their homes.


This would mean that there would continue to be a steady increase in computational needs to maintain the currency, even after the last bitcoin ever was mined, because those trading histories will only get longer and more complicated to process.
It doesn't take any extra computational power to process a more recent transaction than it does an older one. Actually processing transactions takes almost no computational power whatsoever. My Raspberry Pi can process a block of 3000 of them in a second or less. They're specifically designed to be easy and cheap to process. The history takes some time to process just to verify that it's correct, but you only need to do that once when you're setting up a server for the first time. And if you have a copy of the transaction history that you already trust, you don't even need to do that. Once you're done, you already know all the balances on all the addresses, so processing a transaction just means verifying a signature from one address to another, which is almost instant. The history of the transaction no longer meters because you already verified it up to the present point, and you can even discard that history if you need to free up storage. The heavy processing power is only for signing and time stamping "blocks" of transactions to make sure past transactions can't be messed with. The computational power to do that has nothing to do with the number of transactions or how long the Bitcoin network existed. That power is just based on the total number of miners looking for these block signatures. The more people mining, the higher the processing power needed. Less people mining, less processing power needed. That's it.

Now, I don't have historic data to back this up, but logically speaking, this could mean that the CO2 cost of BitCoin accelerates dramatically, maybe even exponentially, over time. It's likely that at one time BitCoin WAS less impactful than gold mining, though I don't have the data to show when exactly that would have been.
Bitcoin is still less impactful than gold mining. Check the data in my previous post. And it's not much of an impact on CO2.

Any way you look at it though, it doesn't seem to be an ecologically or financially sustainable model, and sooner or later the needs of the system as a whole will become more expensive to operate than the profit they create.
This is where that mining power difficulty adjustment based on number of people mining comes in. That adjustment is based on a target goal of someone mining a block every ten minutes. If lots of people start mining, they will find blocks faster, and two weeks later the Bitcoin system will look back, see that blocks are found an average of less than every 10 minutes, and make mining more difficult. Let's say this makes the cost of electricity to mine a block too high and unprofitable, and a bunch of miners pull out. When they do, there will be less mining power finding blocks and blocks will be more rare. Two weeks later the system will look back and see that on average it took more than 10 minutes to find a block, and lower the mining difficulty. That will make Bitcoin more profitable again. Thanks to this automatic adjustment it will never be unprofitable to mine Bitcoin, but that also means it can never be too profitable, other than during short periods when the price spikes. Long term, Bitcoin automatically keeps mining profits close to zero. It's a system that is self regulating that can never fail as long as people find use in having money that no one can inflate, control, or censor.

If of anyone is going to continue to use any sources based on digiconomist, then you might as well pretend that we're all dead zombies already :D

And don't worry, just like with a zombie apocalypse, there's nothing you can do to stop it anyway.
 
Last edited:

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
They might mean the Economy...?
It could've been a mistake in wording.
But hell if I know lol.

75% of the world's Bitcoin is mined by servers in China, fuelled mostly by coal.

The emissions of Bitcoin have grown rapidly in recent years and will soon eclipse the carbon foot print of Egypt- a nation of 100m people.
This was the reason Elon Musk's company Tesla recently gave for refusing to sell their cars in Bitcoin.

(although it's hard to believe Tesla was not already aware of this environmental issue; they may simply be cynically manipulating the price for their own purposes. The value of Bitcoins declined 10% after Tesla's announcement. Musk has previously been accused of price manipulation in other areas of business. If you manipulate the price of regular companies, there is potential jail time- but there isn't a structure to prevent people doing that to cryptocurrency values)
 
Last edited:

creamyfox

Well-Known Member
some people buy and sell bitcoin without thinking about it. it's just like... a gamble? people lose lots of money.

i read a person's e-mail address got hacked and the hackers stole 131.000 dollars on binance. that equals more than 1 million lira in my country. (a teacher's salary is about 5.000 lira)

people should be careful.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
This entire thread feels a little weird to me. I don't know if it was supposed to come off as curious or judgmental - based on some of the replies.
 

TyraWadman

The Silent Observer
This entire thread feels a little weird to me. I don't know if it was supposed to come off as curious or judgmental - based on some of the replies.
For real.

"I'm confused and am asking questions"
"Here is a general statement that answers none of my questions"
" Well that doesn't make me feel confident in the product at all, or how I'm supposed to benefit from having it. I think I'll put my time and money elsewhere"
*Insert defensive snark about how we're missing out on securing our future*

This is what I typically find on any thread revolving around any kind of cryptocurrency and I hate it.
 

Raever

Chaotic Neutral Wreckage
For real.

"I'm confused and am asking questions"
"Here is a general statement that answers none of my questions"
" Well that doesn't make me feel confident in the product at all, or how I'm supposed to benefit from having it. I think I'll put my time and money elsewhere"
*Insert defensive snark about how we're missing out on securing our future*

This is what I typically find on any thread revolving around any kind of cryptocurrency and I hate it.

I agree.

I'm all for loving technology and being proud of something, and even wanting to share that knowledge with another...but judging someone for choosing to avoid it is kinda whack yo. :p

Example: I'm a HUGE PC fan, and find consoles to be arguably less useful overall unless circumstances demand otherwise (ex. Someone enjoys them more by default or for nostalgia, someone wants the short term cheaper product, someone wants exclusives, someone supports the consoles company heavily, etc). Almost all of my friends play on console primarily. I don't tell them about why they should change to PC, or judge them for choosing what they're comfortable with. I just offer to buy them steam games if I want to play something with them, and ask them about streaming certain exclusives that I'm not able to play so I can enjoy it with them.

Obviously this isn't the same as a currency system. But the respect should be the same in the end. Let people do as they like, answer questions if they have them (preferably with sources), and then move on ~
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
digital currency would stop wars and wasteful spending? That sounds like a load of malarky not gonna lie. Like telling people to put their money into a digital currency that at the drop of a word from Elon Musk tanks 10k per unit is capable of such things feels negligent.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
digital currency would stop wars and wasteful spending? That sounds like a load of malarky not gonna lie. Like telling people to put their money into a digital currency that at the drop of a word from Elon Musk tanks 10k per unit is capable of such things feels negligent.
The drop happened because it's still small and because there were a lot of leveraged buys that got wiped out in what's called a long squeeze (it's like the opposite of a short squeeze, where a leveraged buy is forced to be liquidated and bitcoins are sold to cover the leverage, causing the price to go down, causing other leveraged buys to get liquidated, etc. Look it up). Musk lowered the price a bit, enough to trigger it, but the long squeeze was what dropped it. This is still part of growing pains of adoption, but is taking more and more to do. For example this time it took someone with over a billion in bitcoin to cause it, which btw he said he's not selling. And once bitcoin takes over as a reserve currency (sounds crazy but it's inevitable for a number of reasons) no one will dump it because what would you dump it into? Actually come next year once USD starts to inflate a lot and cause havoc in the stock market, institutional investors may not have anywhere to go BUT Bitcoin.

Regarding wars and wasteful spending, the only way US can afford to wage wars is because it can keep printing money to. That's it. If we had to pay for all the wars and military spending through taxes, US would have gone bankrupt as far back as WW2, if not WW1. Wars that all modern countries wage are only possible to fund through inflation. If (when) people switch to deflationary Bitcoin that no government can control or print, no government will be able to conjure money out of thin air to keep funding wars. If our government wants to get us involved in a war, it would have to convince us why we want to be in it and convince us to raise our taxes to pay for it.
Wasteful spending I think I explained earlier. If you have a company that burns energy and resources and just loses you money, say 2% a year, you wouldn't invest in it because it's obviously a bad investment. But if the money inflation is at 3%, meaning your cash is losing 3% a year, suddenly that 2% loss seems good, since your investment looks like it's getting you a 1% return by staying ahead of inflation. So investors and businesses invest in these companies that waste energy and destroy our environment producing things people don't need, only because of inflationary USD. And that's just the tip of it. Military wasteful spending, people buying cheap garbage from China just because their money is losing value and they want to get rid of us, the WHOLE consumerist culture where we don't save and even go into debt to buy more and more crap, all of that is caused by dollar (and other government currency) inflation. A deflationary currency fixes all that. And Bitcoin is the best option we have.
Elon is the one who is being negligent, spreading misinformation about Bitcoins' energy use, manipulating the market, and convincing people to invest in a cryptocurrency that is actually designed not to work and always be useless, since it was designed as a joke from the beginning (Doge). But Bitcoin won't care. The dip is temporary, like they all have been. Real money that's in Bitcoin (other billionaires and institutional funds who understand it) don't give a crap what he thinks because they know he's wrong.
 

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
if all of these issues stem from a capitalistic venue than why not just be rid of all of it? get rid of currency and see where we go instead of just playing a shell game from one currency to the next especially when the proposed next is one that the overly wealthy could play into and manipulate and harm the smaller investors much like they do with the stock market.

Like tbh at the core of it all bit coin and digital currency is just another stock market really money pooled into one tank that increases the value of the represented piece that can then tank down when people pull their own money out of it.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
Regarding
75% of the world's Bitcoin is mined by servers in China, fuelled mostly by coal.
FALSE.
Less than 40% of Bitcoin is mined in China, fueled by excess hydro power that those power stations can't get rid of. China built hydro stations way out in the middle of nowhere thinking people will move there, but they didn't, and it's too inefficient to transmit that power over long distances where it's actually needed. But Bitcoin miners can set up shop nearby and use that power that would otherwise go to waste. It's estimated that about 75% of Bitcoin mining uses green or "excess" energy that gets generated and thrown away (I can find sources, but my main one is that I know a lot of these big miners in China and around the world personally).

The emissions of Bitcoin have grown rapidly in recent years and will soon eclipse the carbon foot print of Egypt- a nation of 100m people.
This was the reason Elon Musk's company Tesla recently gave for refusing to sell their cars in Bitcoin.

FALSE. Emissions from Bitcoin are negligible, and since they use green or excess energy, of Bitcoin were to disappear, emissions wouldn't even change. The estimates for emissions ALL come from a single guy, Alex de Vries, who put together a site called Doginomics, but he's not an economist, knows nothing about power or electric grids, apparently doesn't know how Bitcoin works exactly, most of his numbers are based on guesses that are completely BONKERS (based on his figures Bitcoin will use ALL of the world's energy by 2020... which didn't happen), and he actually lies by claiming his research is sourced and verified by third parties, but when you go to those third parties you find out that they're just articles written based on HIS OWN false data.
Elon used this wrong information for his reason because Elon doesn't understand or know any better. But he also said he's not selling any of the bitcoin he's got and will accept it again once it's more energy efficient. It is more energy efficient, and new innovations like Bitcoin's Lightning Network make it way way more energy efficient still.

(although it's hard to believe Tesla was not already aware of this environmental issue;
It's very likely. Tesla is in the business of getting Green Energy tax credits and reselling them to other car manufacturers like Chrysler who use them for tax deductions, which pretends to be a car company (without those credits Tesla has never been profitable). He's not in the business of crypto or anything related to it, so it's not surprising he wouldn't know. He even thinks Doge is a better alternative, which is just nuts.


Musk has previously been accused of price manipulation in other areas of business. If you manipulate the price of regular companies, there is potential jail time- but there isn't a structure to prevent people doing that to cryptocurrency values)
There is. Cryptocurrency is treated like a security by US, so the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) can come after him for this. They already issued him warnings for other similar shenanigans. But I think his bigger issue may be people coming up to him at exclusive parties - people who run funds and banks that have invested billions into Bitcoin - who may be giving him a "stern warning" to knock it off.
 
Last edited:

Rassah

Well-Known Member
if all of these issues stem from a capitalistic venue than why not just be rid of all of it? get rid of currency and see where we go instead of just playing a shell game from one currency to the next especially when the proposed next is one that the overly wealthy could play into and manipulate and harm the smaller investors much like they do with the stock market.

Like tbh at the core of it all bit coin and digital currency is just another stock market really money pooled into one tank that increases the value of the represented piece that can then tank down when people pull their own money out of it.
These issues stem from a "people need to trade things and need a reliable measure of value" venue. We used gold as a universal and reliable measure of value, but then governments took it and gave us paper they claimed was backed by it, and eventually the power to just make more money to pay for whatever they want became too enticing, so they dropped the gold backing. But we need currency because we need to be able to measure value, just like we need units of length, weight, and temperature to measure those things. Economies, trade, and production itself can't exists without it.
Bitcoin is the first one in history that can't be changed or manipulated because it's secured by math. So it's the first unit of measure of value that can be used reliably by anyone in the world without worry that some big government or big bank will take it over and screw with it for their own benefit at your expense.
It will take a while for it to grow to where it becomes the main money, mainly because it's taking a while to convince people why it's a better money. Especially in countries like US and Europe where we're VERY priviliged to have somewhat stable currency and a modern financial system (though those are also getting closer and closer to failure). But it's happening inevitably bit by bit. And once it gets there, what will people pull their money out of Bitcoin into? Something that depends entirely on your corrupt government's whims that's rapidly losing money to hyperinflation?

Oh, also there's no "next one" when it comes to cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is like the internet, a decentralized protocol network that's also completely open source. There's no reason to have a next one just like there's no reason to have a next internet. If you have an improvement that is sufficiently good that everyone will want to adopt it, just add it to Bitcoin itself, just like we make improvements to internet itself instead of creating a whole new one.

And regarding negligence, I wonder who was more negligent, me who understands the how and why of Bitcoin telling people here to invest in and move their money into it when it was $100 or less years ago? Or Fallow and others telling people that it's a stupid idea that is just a ponzi scheme or fake money that will crash to zero any time now even though they don't understand it or anything about it? How many people missed out on and lost possibly life changing opportunities because someone who knows nothing about it gave their ignorant opinion on it?
 

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.

A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.

A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.
You can't get rid of the capital system because it's based on people having the freedom to own and trade things. No matter how much you try to restrict them or force them to give things up, they will always fight to regain their freedom and keep their possessions. And even if you succeed, that still won't make things worthless, since people will always value certain things more than others and be willing to trade things they value less for things they value more.

A society that isn't driven by monetary gain and avoids the use of money is always much more wasteful because it has no means by which to even measure waste and efficiency. For instance, say you're a factory that makes socks. For each pair of socks you have 50¢ worth of electricity, 25¢ worth of cotton and materials, and 25¢ worth of labor, which comes up to $1 for a pair of socks. And since people are willing to pay $1.10 for a pair, you know your company is providing 10¢ worth of value for your community (trusted brand, convenience, or whatever). You also know that you are spending exactly 50¢ on energy and 25¢ on materials. Now let's say you decide to use a less efficient source of energy that drives up the cost of electricity to 70¢, or you decide to use fancier more resource intense-to-procure cotton (maybe shipped from overseas) that costs 45¢. Your socks now cost $1.20 worth of energy/resources to produce. But people feel that $1.20, or even $1.30 if you include your cut, is too expensive for a pair of socks, because they would rather spend that extra money on something they value more, so they don't buy the pricier socks and only buy the old $1.10 version. That tells you that the extra energy/material is wasting resources because people don't want it.
Or let's say you're making those same normal socks, and you find a way to use your electricity more efficiently where it costs you 45¢ of electricity instead of 50¢ to produce the same socks. Now you can have fewer costs go into making socks, and either earn more money, or sell them for 5¢ less, since you're making them with a more efficient method.

Now imagine all money and ways to measure things went away. How would you know how much energy and resources you're using? You wouldn't. How would you know that the fancier more expensive socks are a waste of resources? You wouldn't. And in fact without price people will only want the fancier socks - the fancier the better - since they don't know what the energy costs are. So this system would waste more and more energy and resources, not knowing that it's a waste. And how will you know that your production method is more efficient and that it's actually worth it? Sure you can measure watts, but how do you measure which material is more efficient to use? And if using less electricity results in lower quality, how would you know if the tradeoff is worth it? Worse, if there are no prices or costs, why would you even bother trying to be more efficient? Without price and profit motive, where the more efficient you make something the more you earn, there's no incentive to be more efficient at all. This is what's called the "Economic Calculation Problem." And, incidentally, USSR was a society not driven by monetary gain, where profit was illegal and all prices were determined by government planners and based on people's needs rather than markets, and it was the most wasteful, polluting, and warring country in the last century.

To add to this, say you calculate the cost of electricity to be 50¢ and cost of materials to be 25¢, but then the central bank issuing the money you use for calculations prints a bunch more, where the value of money suddenly drops. Now your electricity use and materials went up to 60¢ and 30¢. But is this because your production became less efficient? Did your electricity provider break something at their power plant or your cotton provider started using less efficient delivery methods? Or is it just inflation? You don't know. This kind of money manipulation really distorts the markets and makes measures of efficiency and cost difficult to track. Great big example of that was the 2008 housing boom, where companies wasted BILLIONS of materials and energy building new houses, thinking they were using resources efficiently for things people wanted, only to have the market come crashing down and all those projects become abandoned or even unfinished, all because the money printing for the years before distorted the market, making housing look better than it actually was. This act of controlling and expanding the money supply is like trying to build a house while someone keeps changing and increasing the size of an inch. It's difficult at the least.
This is what bitcoin fixes by providing a stable (in quantity) and impossible to manipulate unit of measure for value. You know that when you measure some value relative to bitcoin, the amount of bitcoin will be fixed and unchanging. Once bitcoin is adopted by the whole economy, the only change in its value is relative to the economy growing as a whole, which is much easier to predict and calculate. Things like the housing bubble would be impossible, since there will be no unknown distortions in the money supply.
 
Last edited:

Yakamaru

Very Speshul Title
Get rid of the capital system and it is all worthless anyway. Then there would be no worry about this digital funny money that is just as flawed as any other currency outside of actual coin of physical value and use or material products for trade in general.

A society less inclined to be driven by monetary gain, not entirely inclined because resources are still a thing regardless, but at least the dollar sign is gone, is in reality the one that draws closer to one less inclined to waste and war. The path isnt to reinforce capital but to be against it or to be ancap for short hand really.
How are you going to measure the value of something if you get rid of the capital system? What are you going to replace the system with?
 

ASTA

Former Trash Man
This thread is silly.

Apparently it's also causing people I have on my block-list to try to contact me in order to advocate bitcoins to me. .-.

It's only silly because you don't like bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency for that matter) and your rebuttals to its validity and merit as an alternative currency suck.
 
Last edited:

Miles Marsalis

The Last DJ.
Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.

1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?

2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)
 
Last edited:

MechaMegs

The Red Menace
Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.

1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?

2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)
or what is to stop an entire government from pouring a chunk of its money into the coin to effectively have control over its value.
they could inflate and deflate it at a whim much like the overly largess of the rich already can and do, but on an even larger scale depending on the country.
How are you going to measure the value of something if you get rid of the capital system? What are you going to replace the system with?

How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?
 

TyraWadman

The Silent Observer
or what is to stop an entire government from pouring a chunk of its money into the coin to effectively have control over its value.
they could inflate and deflate it at a whim much like the overly largess of the rich already can and do, but on an even larger scale depending on the country.


How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?
I would prefer not to have to fetch 1000 pelts for a computer. So I don't mind currency.

Its just the greed, and the fact that no matter what form it takes or how hard you try to regulate, greed will continue to adapt, which is why the whole save the world statement seems like a joke to me.

People have started wars over less. People will do just as much damage to gain a virtual currency.
 

Yakamaru

Very Speshul Title
How did people measure the value of things prior to currency? Ape didn't turn upright and pull drachme from the dirt it is a concept that just wound up being backed by the powers over the people. We don't need capital to survive. Humans are social creatures that are capable of supporting eachother without any gain needed to force it. we live together in group//village we protect eachother we survive with eachother one gets fish another pig some crops, together those who can defend from wolf and mountain cat. currency isnt needed a concept isnt needed value is in everything and the coin just makes it seem more valuable by slapping an arbitrary number to it and generating commoditization. Without that what incentive is there for waste and such what are you chasing for by stripping the earth of its resources and polluting its airs?
I'm fairly sure I am using plain, easy-to-understand English, using simple questions. Can I take this reply of yours as "I haven't the faintest idea"?
 

Fallowfox

Are we moomin, or are we dancer?
It's only silly because you don't like bitcoin (or any cryptocurrency for that matter) and your rebuttals to its validity and merit as an alternative currency suck.

I actually think it's silly because people are having a genuine debate about 'getting rid of the capital system' whatever that means.

As for the idea that my comments are a 'rebuttal to bitcoin's validity,'

I've made only two comments in the thread,
and they both come from sources which are neutral towards the merit of cryptocurrencies:

-That hyperlinks to child pornography had been included as arbitrary data in the blockchain.

-75% of bitcoin 'hashing power' is concentrated in China, a major portion of which is currently supported by coal.
This was sourced from a recent paper published in Nature:
 

Rassah

Well-Known Member
Just wanted to pose two questions because I'm curiosity what the response will be and haven't seen them answered.

1. If cryptocurrencies issued and sustained by private institutions and groups are somewhat successful, what is to stop public institutions like the central banks of governments from creating their own cryptocurrencies, which would presumably be stronger since they could very well be backed by the full faith and current of the issuing government, be considered legal tender, and have the advantage of benefiting from governments' ability to invest more in cryptocurrency infrastructure for its own cryptocurrency?

That would be a threat. A government or a private institution issuing its own currency and promising to never inflate it no matter what, never mess with its interest rates, never manipulate its value, and never restrict or censor its users from sending it to whomever they want in the world, would be a legitimate threat to bitcoin and would very likely kill it. But governments have never been able to hold such a promise because printing and inflating money for their own benefit has always been impossible for powerful people to resist. And, since they have thousands of years of such history, even if they make such a currency and make that promise it's unlikely people will believe them that "this time they really will keep their word." They don't have to trust anyone for that with bitcoin though. The fact that no one controls it and that it's so globally decentralized and secured is what gives it its value, not someone standing behind it.


2. What are sound plans for mitigating investment risk as more governments seek to ban or regulate cryptocurrencies? (For example, India is about to draft a major bill that could negatively affect Bitcoin and other currencies.)

It's the same plan that was created from the very beginning. Bitcoin is so decentralized that banning it is logistically impossible. It only takes 250 kilobytes to send a transaction, which lots of different communication mediums can easily handle. If a country bans mining or running Bitcoin nodes, miners will continue to work all over the rest of the world, and nodes can just remain anonymous. And tracking who is using Bitcoin is becoming more and more impossible. Basically for a country like India to ban Bitcoin would be as difficult as them banning Facebook. Only way to really do it is to shut down the internet, which would bring a whole host of other catastrophes, and wouldn't even affect Bitcoin or anyone else in the world. It would be no different from, say, Russia shutting off their internet to punish America.
On the investment side, every time a country banned Bitcoin, its use went way up in that country. Most recently Nigeria hinted at banning Bitcoin last March, and from that its demand in Nigeria shot up so high that it was selling for over $75k there. Streisand Effect + government admitting to people what money gives them the freedom from that government's financial controls.
 
Last edited:
Top