The anti-crypto thread

[BFG10K]

Great news, crypto's collapsing across the board: https://www.techpowerup.com/282380/...ions-in-less-than-24-hours-did-the-bubble-pop

Also China's banned crypto, though individuals can still have it: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chinese-financial-payment-bodies-barred-122712260.html

The sooner this cancerous parasite is wiped out, the better.

 

[VirtualLarry]

So You Think Bitcoin Mining is Wasteful? | Braiins

Comparing the total energy consumption of Bitcoin mining with the energy consumption of people playing video games around the world. This article was written by our own @dfrumps.

braiins.com

Here's one estimate.

 

[sdifox]

So You Think Bitcoin Mining is Wasteful? | Braiins

Comparing the total energy consumption of Bitcoin mining with the energy consumption of people playing video games around the world. This article was written by our own @dfrumps.

braiins.com

Here's one estimate.

Even if we go with that estimate it is not gamer using 50x more than miners.

I'll do a quick estimate to show you how ludicrous their gamer number is.

I run a RMx850 psu which is 80+ efficiency. So let's call it 1KW draw which you know it is not drawing since I am on Ryzen 3700X, RX5700 XT, 1 1TB NVME, X570 board and 16GB ram.

Let's call it a full time job, so 50 weeks of 40 hours = 2,000 hours yearly. So that translates to 2MWH a year.

There are 40M people in California. So 80M MWH a year. Or 80TWH is the power consumption of the entire population of California playing games as a full time job.

Does that 4.1TWH still look reasonable to you? Cuz that would mean there are 5% of Californians that do nothing but play games as a full time job.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Would be interesting to see how much energy the banking and stock trade system uses vs mining. I'm sure those systems are not that much better.

 

[beginner99]

Nah, there are a whole heap of previous last fool schemes I didn’t get in on and I’m not angry about. Crypto is just one more last fool scheme I’m not angry about. For the same reason I don’t have a closet full of beany babies, I don’t have a wallet full of crypto.

With any investment, one needs to do his research and think about usability. Thing that only have collectors value are prone to fads and hence prone to lose value. Things that have an actual use will have a much brighter future.

For example my grand-dad was big in the stamp collection game. Always told grandma it's a great investment. It wasn't. the cheaper stuff bascially lost all value and the really rarer stuff still lost a big fraction of their value. Same logic. historic stamps have zero use. It's just collectors value. Having said that I got a crypto-stamp as present recently which one could "scratch open" to get an NFT. But I'm sure it loses all value once you actual "mint" the NFT. (That stamp was like $5 so it while it's sutpid as investment it's just a fad of current times and I don't think it will get valuable).

What makes this particularly egregious is it's a massive transfer of wealth from those who don't have it to lose to those who already had plenty.

All the poor fools (who will likely be the last fools) sending all their free cash into the wealth lottery of crypto are just giving it to a bunch of tech bros and people who already had high incomes prior to this. There is some truth to the 'everyone on these forums makes $100k+' as we have a high concentration of people with decades in technology. All those GPUs and CPUs we had access to 'for free' were paid for via high technology salaries.

It's a transfer of wealth all right, in the wrong fucking direction.

Viper GTS

If you think averages Joes investing 100 or 1000 bucks are driving up the price, think again. It is exactly the other way around. Rich people or better said organisations that are investing millions are driving the price. And you can be part of the ride with your 1000 bucks and make them 10000 or 100k if very lucky. It is something you can't do in traditional markets. Once the market is open to you (stocks) that easy 10x-100x gains are long gone, no chance to invest in start-ups with your measly 1000.

Does that 4.1TWH still look reasonable to you? Cuz that would mean there are 5% of Californians that do nothing but play games as a full time job.

Or 10% that play 12 hrs or 20 % that play 6 hrs. Yeah agree it is probably of by at least 2x. 20% that play 3hrs a day seems somewhat reasonable if we include consoles and for sure probably low-balling if we include mobile phones and handhelds but does don't use that much power to matter much.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Would be interesting to see how much energy the banking and stock trade system uses vs mining. I'm sure those systems are not that much better.

Considering how many transactions the modern American banking system can facilitate, it's actually much more efficient than Bitcoin but much less efficient than something like Stellar.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Considering how many transactions the modern American banking system can facilitate, it's actually much more efficient than Bitcoin but much less efficient than something like Stellar.

Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, etc. All more power efficient than Visa while starting to reach levels of transaction throughput of Visa. And you deploy smart-contracts and build apps on them too.

But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.

 

[dullard]

But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.

You are confusing crypto with blockchain.

Many people feel that blockchain technology is great, but the existing crypto coins will become valueless over time. There are an infinite possible number of coins, thus supply is infinite (even if one coin is limited anyone can create unlimited different copies of that coin). Since demand is not infinite, so the long term price is zero. It may take decades to reach zero, but that is where they will end up.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

You are confusing crypto with blockchain.

Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos. They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

The point I was making though is that - and this is not directed at you specifically but for those that keep bringing it up: the energy argument is dead. And the fact people still bring it up is the equivalent (to me at least) of 75 year old politicians making choices on modern matters that influence the lives of prime-career millennials with their entire lives still ahead of them. If/when the market is freely allowed to determine that yes PoS is undeniably better than PoW, then even Bitcoin will be forced to evolve too.

So those who don't know what they're talking about should just leave it alone. Otherwise they contribute to trying to shackle innovation and slow this entire process down. And for what? Because they missed the boat? Or maybe it's because they really truly care about a major pipeline being ransomed 8 years ago, but seem to conveniently ignore the pre-school level of cyber-security that major pipeline had deployed. Or maybe they truly believe the 0.5% world-energy consumption of Bitcoin, much of on renewables, is the main cause of climate collapse... which brings me back my 75 year old politician analogy!

 

[VirtualLarry]

Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos.

They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

People forget, pr0n built the internet. As far as technology, capacity expansion, etc. Literally.

So, as much as some people have against pr0n (why?), it still resulted in ... well, I guess the internet is as much a force for "good" as humankind has ever seen. (Maybe minus Vicebook.)

So, as much as people have against "crypto", it's building Web 3.0, the new basis for the interwebs of the future. Decentralization is key!

 

[nakedfrog]

People forget, pr0n built the internet. As far as technology, capacity expansion, etc. Literally.

Citation needed.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Citation needed.

Pretty widely-known fact, that early higher-bandwidth hosting and video / streaming services were built out by the nascent pr0n industry. We wouldn't have AWS and Netflix, had pr0n providers not blazed a trail of technology.

So in those days, Trekkie Monster's analysis wouldn't have been far wrong.
And, as he suggests to Kate, appetite for pornography helped to drive demand for faster connections: better modems and higher bandwidth.
It spurred innovation in other areas, too. Online pornography providers were pioneers in web technologies, such as video file compression and user-friendly payment systems, and in business models, such as affiliate marketing programmes.
All these ideas went on to find much wider uses. And as the internet expanded, it gradually became less for pornography and more for all that other stuff.

quoth the beeb.

Does pornography still drive the internet?

Sex has always helped develop and accelerate technology.

www.bbc.com

 

[nakedfrog]

Pretty widely-known fact, that early higher-bandwidth hosting and video / streaming services were built out by the nascent pr0n industry. We wouldn't have AWS and Netflix, had pr0n providers not blazed a trail of technology.

Uh... sure. I wouldn't say that means "porn built the internet", since what you're describing didn't happen until the mid-2000s, after consumer broadband was more widely available, and AFTER the Dot Com Bubble.

 

[IronWing]

Cryptos are what facilitated the growth of blockchain tech. Without the cryptos, we still have blockchains (but definitely not ones with smart-contracts or self-governance mechanisms) but instead ones that no one cares to build or deploy anything on, because they aren't secure, decentralized, and without any efficient rewards mechanism for participating (i.e. cryptocurrency, because I have no idea how you involve fiat as any sort of native or base payment token), then there's no growth.

People confuse bad people with cryptos. They are unfortunately a useful tool for bad people, but after all this time I can't really sympathize with anyone buying shiba-moon-cum coin/NFT or DeFi yielding rocket-dick-token for 20,000% APY and then losing everything.

The point I was making though is that - and this is not directed at you specifically but for those that keep bringing it up: the energy argument is dead. And the fact people still bring it up is the equivalent (to me at least) of 75 year old politicians making choices on modern matters that influence the lives of prime-career millennials with their entire lives still ahead of them. If/when the market is freely allowed to determine that yes PoS is undeniably better than PoW, then even Bitcoin will be forced to evolve too.

So those who don't know what they're talking about should just leave it alone. Otherwise they contribute to trying to shackle innovation and slow this entire process down. And for what? Because they missed the boat? Or maybe it's because they really truly care about a major pipeline being ransomed 8 years ago, but seem to conveniently ignore the pre-school level of cyber-security that major pipeline had deployed. Or maybe they truly believe the 0.5% world-energy consumption of Bitcoin, much of on renewables, is the main cause of climate collapse... which brings me back my 75 year old politician analogy!

Declaring the energy argument dead does not make it so. If bitcoin really consumes 0.5% of world energy demand then it should have been shut down yesterday. As I stated earlier, a nihilist cult couldn’t have devised a worse exchange medium.

 

[njdevilsfan87]

Declaring the energy argument dead does not make it so. If bitcoin really consumes 0.5% of world energy demand then it should have been shut down yesterday. As I stated earlier, a nihilist cult couldn’t have devised a worse exchange medium.

Again, you sound like 75 year old politician talking here.

You can't just simply shut down Bitcoin. If the US were to "shut it down", you'd have an exodus of crypto holder and blockchain entrepreneurs heading to Canada or any developed country still that's crypto friendly. And guess what? Bitcoin would still be using some fraction of a percent of world energy demand (most of it on renewables). But again, please tell me how much you really do care how much power Bitcoin is using as you continue to live your carbon footprint heavy western lifestyle.

The only good course of action is to let the space keep evolving and naturally move away from PoW. Already within the space newcomers call Bitcoin, "the boomer coin". As I said, at some point the pressure for Bitcoin to evolve will come (probably when Ethereum flips Bitcoin's market cap) and it will either do so or be replaced by Ethereum as digital gold, a store of value, or whatever. Any interference is just going to slow this down.

 

[IronWing]

"A store of value" that fluctuates wildly is not a store of value. It's a spectacularly wasteful form of gambling. Of course, anyone who doesn't see it as wonderful, doesn't understand it. Only true believers understand the value of crypto.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Solana, Cardano, Polkadot, Tezos, etc. All more power efficient than Visa while starting to reach levels of transaction throughput of Visa. And you deploy smart-contracts and build apps on them too.

But nobody would dare mention that here as it completely destroys one of their anti-crypto agendas.

How many people know anything except Bitcoin? Depressingly few. Also Solana and Cardano have mmmm well let's not start the whole decentralized vs centralized debate, but they aren't entirely decentralized. Regardless, there ARE some at-least-semi-dentralized blockchains out there offering good throughput. The question is how well they'll hold up to pressure. Stuff like Ethereum I trust to stay decentralized, but the base chain throughput is just awful. And Bitcoin is a joke by this point.

"A store of value"

Go on, drink the Bitcoin Maximalist Kool-Aid and then complain that it tastes like crap. Store of value my foot.

 

[beginner99]

The question is how well they'll hold up to pressure. Stuff like Ethereum I trust to stay decentralized, but the base chain throughput is just awful.

Most of these "ETH killers" struggled just as much with any kind of increased demand or they are so centralized it's pointless to even do it in a blockchain. It is secure, decentralized and performant. Pick 2. ETH picks the first two and performance will come from Layer 2. At this point I think side-chains are also too insecure, eg. MATIC.

Roll-ups get faster and cheaper the more transactions happen. Why? Because each roll-up has a certain minimum size. the more transaction the faster that is reached and you are sharing the cost with more transactions in the same roll-up.
Then with zkEVM you can run the smart contracts on L2 making it even cheaper. At that point it will likley be cheaper than banking if you include all the fees you pay in traditional banking.

 

[DrMrLordX]

At this point I think side-chains are also too insecure, eg. MATIC.

I'm still waiting to see someone break Polygon that easily. Hasn't happened yet to my knowledge. But zk rollups may render it obsolete anyway.

 

[ultimatebob]

Crypto prices are still jacking up prices in the used video card market. My cat and I are very annoyed by the selling prices for GeForce cards on eBay:

 

[njdevilsfan87]

"A store of value" that fluctuates wildly is not a store of value. It's a spectacularly wasteful form of gambling. Of course, anyone who doesn't see it as wonderful, doesn't understand it. Only true believers understand the value of crypto.

There are a few reasons beyond price - which by the way, is becoming less volatile the bigger Bitcoin gets, that makes Bitcoin a good store of value. And Bitcoin is wonderful because of what it set off, and not necessarily because of what it remains today. You can be anti-Bitcoin, but being anti-crypto and then using dated arguments that only really apply to Bitcoin or PoW... again I go back to the 75-year old politician analogy. Or some Q-conspiracy theorist equivalent that's going to post about everyone using crypto solely to evade taxes.

But I'm still waiting on the answer to why you or others truly care so much about how wasteful it is while hypocritically living your carbon heavy Western lifestyles. And then beyond that, why the anti-crypto agenda ignores all of the green gen 3.0 blockchains. But I'm sure OP will post another DeFi exploit/hack that you all truly thoughts and prayers care about too.

 

[MrSquished]

I fail to see why the fact that people made money off of something immediately implies it has value. For anything.

The sub prime mortgage fiasco made a lot of people rich during some of it's phases, so using that same logic, one can't criticize that event because it's just people being salty they didn't get in while the getting was good for a bit.

 

[IronWing]

There are a few reasons beyond price - which by the way, is becoming less volatile the bigger Bitcoin gets, that makes Bitcoin a good store of value. And Bitcoin is wonderful because of what it set off, and not necessarily because of what it remains today. You can be anti-Bitcoin, but being anti-crypto and then using dated arguments that only really apply to Bitcoin or PoW... again I go back to the 75-year old politician analogy. Or some Q-conspiracy theorist equivalent that's going to post about everyone using crypto solely to evade taxes.

But I'm still waiting on the answer to why you or others truly care so much about how wasteful it is while hypocritically living your carbon heavy Western lifestyles. And then beyond that, why the anti-crypto agenda ignores all of the green gen 3.0 blockchains. But I'm sure OP will post another DeFi exploit/hack that you all truly thoughts and prayers care about too.

Why are the arguments dated if they are still 100% valid? Whataboutism isn't a valid counterpoint.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Well, even crypto fanboys should recognize that the Bitcoin process for processing block chain transactions consumes an unnecessary amount of electrical power (and, no, those miners running 7/24 are not consuming just 'green' energy). It should make sense for everybody to be in favor of changes to reduce our consumption of energy whatever it is being used for. I haven't heard anything to suggest that Bitcoin will be moving to a less energy intensive proof of service as Etherium is. I hope Bitcoin follows that route soon.

I am not anti-crypto any more than I am anti-gold, anti-diamonds, anti-lottery tickets or anti-tulip bulbs. However, the value of all of these things seems to be more in the eye of the beholder than in their intrinsic usefulness. The more steps I have to go through to turn something into a loaf of bread, the less confident I am in its value. That is one of the main reason I haven't bought into Bitcoin as an investment.

The advisors who support crypto investing still generally recommend allocating only a very small percentage to crypto and warn that it is a very risky investment that may deliver big gains or big losses. This doesn't sound like a 'storer of value' to me.

In some ways, the very things that enthusiasts put forward as the advantages of crypto are the same things that make me suspicious of it. Perhaps time (another decade of it) will prove me wrong.

 

[MrSquished]

Well, even crypto fanboys should recognize that the Bitcoin process for processing block chain transactions consumes an unnecessary amount of electrical power (and, no, those miners running 7/24 are not consuming just 'green' energy). It should make sense for everybody to be in favor of changes to reduce our consumption of energy whatever it is being used for. I haven't heard anything to suggest that Bitcoin will be moving to a less energy intensive proof of service as Etherium is. I hope Bitcoin follows that route soon.

I am not anti-crypto any more than I am anti-gold, anti-diamonds, anti-lottery tickets or anti-tulip bulbs. However, the value of all of these things seems to be more in the eye of the beholder than in their intrinsic usefulness. The more steps I have to go through to turn something into a loaf of bread, the less confident I am in its value. That is one of the main reason I haven't bought into Bitcoin as an investment.

The advisors who support crypto investing still generally recommend allocating only a very small percentage to crypto and warn that it is a very risky investment that may deliver big gains or big losses. This doesn't sound like a 'storer of value' to me.

In some ways, the very things that enthusiasts put forward as the advantages of crypto are the same things that make me suspicious of it. Perhaps time (another decade of it) will prove me wrong.

Listen if some people made money off of it then it must be good. Stop with your thinking there

 

[DrMrLordX]

Well, even crypto fanboys should recognize that the Bitcoin process for processing block chain transactions consumes an unnecessary amount of electrical power

Who do you think is pushing for Proof of Stake? Anti-blockchain skeptics? Don't listen to Bitcoin Maximalists. They're idiots.

This doesn't sound like a 'storer of value' to me.

Because it isn't. Bitcoin was designed as a method of retiring debts, e.g. spendable digital cash. It's in the original whitepaper. Bitcoin failed to scale, badly. Now it's tiresome proponents make excuses for it while clueless investors continue to prop up the technical failure that is Bitcoin.

Listen if some people made money off of it then it must be good. Stop with your thinking there

Congratulations. Apparently you're a Bitcoin Maximalist now.