94
submitted 3 months ago by Hirom@beehaw.org to c/technology@beehaw.org
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kbal@fedia.io 42 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum, which are far more energy efficient than Bitcoin

Calling those that don't depend on proof-of-work "more energy efficient" is understating it to the point of being dishonest. The difference is not that they're more efficient in any conventional way. It's that they don't have the amazing bitcoin feature of relying for their operation on the practice of deliberately wasting enormous amounts of energy for the purpose of being able to prove that you've wasted enormous amounts of energy.

All the way through the cryptocurrency crash which the average reader of headlines might've thought had put an end to it by now, the bitcoin network has kept on burning up absurd amounts of power.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 9 points 3 months ago

the practice of deliberately wasting enormous amounts of energy for the purpose of being able to prove that you've wasted enormous amounts of energy.

C'mon, that's being disingenuous. Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use. A consequence of proof-of-work is wasted energy, but a focus on low-power modalities and throttling have been developed in the intervening years. The prevailing paradigm at the time was, "your C/GPU is going to be burning energy anyway, you may as well do something with it."

It was a poor design decision, but it wasn't a malicious one like you make it sound. You may as well accuse the inventors of the internal combustion engine of designing it for the express purpose of creating pollution.

[-] chameleon@fedia.io 20 points 3 months ago

It's absolutely not the case that nobody was thinking about computer power use. The Energy Star program had been around for around 15 years at that point and even had an EU-US agreement, and that was sitting alongside the EU's own energy program. Getting an 80Plus-certified power supply was already common advice to anyone custom-building a PC which was by far the primary group of users doing Bitcoin mining before it had any kind of mainstream attention. And the original Bitcoin PDF includes the phrase "In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.", despite not going in-depth (it doesn't go in-depth on anything).

The late 00s weren't the late 90s where the most common OS in use did not support CPU idle without third party tooling hacking it in.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 15 points 3 months ago

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

It didn't take long before people saw that energy was a major factor in cost of operations of the network.

It was a poor design decision

One that is fiercely defended by people who invested into the implementation. So it may not have started with it being anticipated, but not it is and people are actively choosing to perpetuate this use of energy.

[-] kbal@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

If I were looking to assign blame, I'd start with the coal and gas operators who are digging up fossil fuels that would otherwise remain in the ground just to fuel their bitcoin mining rigs, those who peddle specious arguments claiming that it somehow isn't a problem, those who turned the whole thing into a machine for separating the gullible from their money, and those who've built the shaky, buggy, mostly proprietary, convoluted, half-finished, untrustworthy, horrible mess that is the software ecosystem surrounding the whole cryptocurrency sphere. Perhaps none of that could have been foreseen by whoever designed bitcoin. On them we can instead put the blame for the failure to make it anywhere near sufficiently scalable, and the ridiculous choice of mechanism for the bitcoin monetary policy which serves to make it function only as a get-rich-quick pyramid scheme and not a durable currency. Regardless of who's to blame, it's got to go.

Perhaps there's already an alternative out there somewhere which is actually useful and not based on avarice, fraud, unsustainable resource usage, or unsustainable hype, but if so it's currently hidden under such an enormous pile of shitcoins that it's impossible to identify. At least the internal combustion engine was good at doing the thing it was supposed to do.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Perhaps there's already an alternative out there somewhere which is actually useful and not based on avarice, fraud, unsustainable resource usage, or unsustainable hype

The USD... /jk 🤣🤣

No currency or money system can avoid those, they are intrinsic features of capitalism, which is an intrinsic consequence of "whoever hoards more X, gets more of most things in life".

And can you blame people for wanting to hide their cards when hoarding X? Have you tried consulting real-time stock values, with market depth, and a list of market orders? Have you checked the pricing plans for a Bloomberg terminal?

Crypto is a world of transparency and freedom, compared to non-crypro markets.

[-] freedomsailor@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

What asset would you consider a good value reserve?

[-] kbal@fedia.io 24 points 3 months ago

A small plot of land with good soil and a steady supply of fresh water, a good education, and a sturdy pair of boots.

[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

So, something the majority of people can never attain. Awesome.

Or are you going to hand me a plot of land that isn't as big as a thimble? If so, sign me up. I want it.

Anti Commercial-AI license

[-] freedomsailor@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

I don’t think you got it. So everything you get extra from this work would be used to multiply the same work? Also, you got me curious: why a small plot, not more?

[-] kbal@fedia.io 10 points 3 months ago

If you can afford more than a small plot of land in this economy, you've probably been hoarding too much wealth. I know it's a very popular hobby, but it's quite bad for you if taken to excess. But this is getting somewhat off-topic.

Some kind of technology that resembles today's cryptocurrencies may or may not have a future. As they exist right now none of them are anything like a good investment opportunity or a safe store of value.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ericjmorey@beehaw.org 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Back when Bitcoin was released, nobody was giving a thought to computer energy use.

VT for long term
Money Market Funds for short term

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] some_guy 30 points 3 months ago

Wasn't fooled by crypto in the first place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 18 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't be fooled by the 20000th round of "crypto is dead" articles.

I agree that BTC is trash but it's still up 100% from last year.

The people who write these articles have no clue.

edit: The Brookings Institute lmao. Right-wing boomer nonsense.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 27 points 3 months ago

What does it mean for bitcoin to double in value?

Has bitcon's utility or usefulness doubled?

Or has bitcoin behaved as a highly volatile speculative asset?

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 29 points 3 months ago

It means that despite being fifteen years old, it still takes more electricity for a single bitcoin transaction than to drive an electric SUV from Florida to California, cost per single transaction has still spiked over 50 USD twice in the last six months, and it remains too prone to wild inflation and deflation for any serious business to actually price anything in.

In other words, it has the same inherent value it always has, none at all.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 8 points 3 months ago

Why not both?

zero usefuless x 2 = zero usefulness

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] realitista@lemm.ee 13 points 3 months ago

It's a great platform for being able to transfer money that would otherwise be under sanctions and for storing criminal profits. And that's probably what it will always be for.

[-] DdCno1@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago

It's a bit too traceable for that though.

[-] realitista@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It's traceable but also possible to hide your identity, especially if you are a major criminal or government under sanctions. Especially when compared to the traditional finance system (in which they also tend to be pretty good at hiding their identities and transactions).

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Kissaki@beehaw.org 9 points 3 months ago

They wrote in the article that it rose. That was part of what they wrote about.

I don't see your point.

[-] unexposedhazard@discuss.tchncs.de 18 points 3 months ago

Most people who got fooled once will get fooled twice. Thats just what fools do.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 9 points 3 months ago
[-] Rolive@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 3 months ago

You can't get fooled again?

[-] FlashMobOfOne@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is 100% why it's good to have a small chunk of your portfolio in crypto. It's hit all-time-highs four times in the last ten years, and now that you can buy into Bitcoin ETF's, you can get dividends as well.

It's hard to argue that it won't again after that, but I wouldn't put any more than 10% of your investment capital into it.

[-] freedomsailor@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

Statistically, yes. But they’re not fooled by crypto, but by other people, or just by their own not understood feelings.

[-] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago

Yes, crypto people keep getting fooled by record breaking prices. So sad.

[-] t3rmit3@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The prices don't mean anything if no one is paying it, which if something is at said 'record breaking' levels, means there is at least 1 fool out of the 2 involved.

It's still just a pyramid scheme in the end, because if I'm trading ammo or a sandwich or pigs or something, at the end of the day if no one wants to buy them from me I can still use them myself.

With crypto, there will by definition be someone holding a valueless and unusable item at some point. Whether or not the opportunity to make money in the time before that happens outweighs being involved in a pyramid scheme, is what everyone has to ask themselves (and be judged for depending on their answer).

You can argue about whether all money is the same in this regard, but there have been hundreds of crypto coins that have failed since the last fiat currency died.

[-] limerod@reddthat.com 5 points 3 months ago

I never understood the crypto hype. There was even an article by protonmail detailing its history and all. Yet, I remain oblivious.

[-] freedomsailor@programming.dev 3 points 3 months ago

Do you know anything about financial markets? It’s there for you to make money out from it. Study and you’ll understand everything you could do with it. Also, on crypto, the hype respects a cycle.

[-] limerod@reddthat.com 4 points 3 months ago

Do you know anything about financial markets?

I'm at a beginner level in Investments and stock market.

Study and you’ll understand everything you could do with it.

I'm already learning about Investments and stock market. Maybe, once I finish that I could consider this. But, I don't see much value in crypto so won't bother.

Perhaps, if my perception changes in the future I could reconsider. Just not in the near future.

[-] freedomsailor@programming.dev 4 points 3 months ago

But crypto is just like the stocks: you can buy it because you believe on the project or just because it’s what’s delivering the best results at the moment. Consider cryptocurrencies as a little portion of your portfolio, intended for risk. You can operate it via ETFs, and thus don’t expose yourself to the risks (and benefits) of the blockchains.

[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 16 points 3 months ago

A stock is based on the profits and production of real companies that offer real goods and services. Crypto is based entirely on hype and sunk cost fallacies.

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

This is simply not true. I’ve been a fulltime software dev in the crypto space for 3 years. Moved to crypto after 25 years in the financial sector. My work in the crypto space is a near parallel to the legacy financial sector wrt products and services I’m delivering.

Sure crypto has a scammer and hype and meme angle but I operate in none of those.

Think of NASDAQ without all the rules. Where anyone can list and trade anything, even complex financial derivatives. It’s so freeing for the little guy. It levels the playing field of the financial system and access to capital quite a bit.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 15 points 3 months ago

You realize that the things listed on the NASDAQ actually represent more than just an entery in a database, right? Like the groups listed on there tend to make physical objects and software that does things beyond move things that can be traded for currency around?

You also realize that the NASDAQ, without all the protections and basic rules the public forced it to adopt after vast numbers of little guys got screwed out of all their money, isn’t actually that great of a pitch? At least not to anyone but the far right uber rich libertarians that hold majority control of the crypto space.

We are talking about a technology that is about as old as smartphones, but which has still yet to see any widespread use to solve a problem it did not itself create.

[-] locuester@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 months ago

I spent 25 years in tradfi as mentioned previously. I’m not delusional or a grifter/scammer.

You realize that some of the things listed on crypto markets actually represent more than just an entry in a distributed ledger, right? I live in Solana (a distributed ledger) world and there’s dozens of tokens which represent true products. Sure most are financial related themselves - but that’s no different than tradfi where banks and exchanges are themselves listed on the exchanges. Others are depin models and governance things for example. It’s a real industry which gets a bad rap since it does enable bad people to do bad things too, and that gets most the press.

First off, our securities regulation is ancient and much is based on a pre internet global world. There’s many changes that can be made to give consumers access to private equity and capital efficiency which currently the rich have guarded for themselves.

Secondly, there are far bigger and badder scams under the current regulation. Enron, worldcom, madoff, tyco, healthsouth, centennial, bre-x etc.

Bad people do bad things under either model, but the free, permissionless model sure opens the door to allow little guys to have a chance.

Raising capital for a small venture in a free global market is a tough nut to crack. And yeah thar be dragons there. But it’s such a freeing concept once you see it in action. I believe in freedom of money, and the global revolution it can bring.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago

Um, no. Traditional markets have financial related companies, but you’ll have to show me where you’re getting the idea the finance sector makes up the majority of the traditional market and as such it is no different than the crypto space where finance makes up nearly the entire market.

I also don’t think that the existence of the internet really changed much when it comes to the need for rules for soliciting investment from the public such as providing investors accounting figures and legal accountability. Nor has it changed the fact that cryptocurrencies haven’t changed the process for gaining the investment necessary to start a new bakery or other small business and never will provide a pathway to do so, and as such hasn’t really changed much at all when it comes to providing customers with more access to investment loans outside of more crypto businesses.

A lot of the scandals you listed weren’t done under the current market regulation, but rather directly led to the current market regulation at the behest of the little guys who got screwed over and pressured politicians into passing it, and as such I just don’t see how removing the protections for the little guy is ment to benefit them over the rich.

I mean surely then the rich would be opposed to the crypto and loosening regulations rather than being the ones most heavily pushing and lobbying the government for them?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] azthec@feddit.nl 11 points 3 months ago

Cryptocurrencies are not like stocks, stock is partial ownership of an enterprise which has the ultimate goal of generating more revenue, stocks are not a trading currency.

[-] sonori@beehaw.org 9 points 3 months ago

Most people when starting out are, or at least should be, very uneasy about putting money into things with no underlying value or feasible purpose beyond being bought by a greater fool in the future.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] pre@fedia.io 3 points 3 months ago

Is there anything more bullish than a big media organisation warning their readers not to buy? Top signal is when the NYT says it's great and everyone should buy in. Seems there's a way to go yet.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

This is an opinion piece.. It's clearly marked as being an opinion. Even though it has solid arguments, and probably hold some truth, it's not an actual news article written by NYT staff, it's not pretending to be a factual reporting by a journalist nor an objective truth.

Everyone is free to agree or disagree with it. To buy, sell, or hold.

It would be wise however to consider the argument themselves, and not decide go to in one direction just because the author/publisher is someone you like or dislike.

[-] Ilandar@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago

Is it actually viable for ordinary people to purchase small amounts of cryptocurrency for the sole purposes of making more private purchases online or taking advantage of cryptocurrency discounts? All the coverage on them is about large-scale investing which makes me feel like no one buying and selling actually has any interest in cryptocurrencies as an alternative currency. Instead it's just about getting rich, which is a massive turn off.

[-] Hirom@beehaw.org 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Bitcoin is not practical for small purshases, because transaction takes several minutes, and have around 50USD per-transaction fee. Note the cost of fees and value of bitcoin vary wildly, so the same amount of bitcoin may be enough to pay rent in August, but not in September.

On a more ethical level, it's also quite bad because of the insane energy cost of bitcoin transactions.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2024
94 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37750 readers
260 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS