Crypto Conversation

[snowdenscold]

To be clear, I’ve never hand waved any serious issues of BTC.

I’ve patiently explained how it’s energy use is absolutely necessary and a net plus to strengthen energy grids, develop more sustainable renewables while also monetizing stranded, wasted energy.

I’ve discussed security issues head on many times in this thread, everything from POW to the difference between a cold and hot wallet.

Who’s really doing the hand wave?

I’ve offered many detailed statistics and proven that even if Bitcoin were to disappear tomorrow there would be no measurable impact on world energy use, that energy grids can be strengthened with BTC use, and that BTC’s stranded energy usage, like gas flares or excess hydro energy in remote locations is growing. Also that more than 50% of BTC use is renewable.

I’ve also done my best to try to help those interested in understanding that the energy use is worth it for a world wide digital asset with unmatched security.

Often the only reply here is that BTC uses more energy than some small country so I don’t like it, without going deeper into the benefits and necessity of that energy use.

1) Energy. Did you read this paper posted several pages back?
https://www.techtransparencyproject...s%20Report.pdf

2) Security. Your view on security (and trust) is underdeveloped, simplistic and somewhat naïve. Your two main arguments are "hash is unbreakable" and "cold storage offline wallets".

There is SO much more that goes into the security (and relatedly, usability) of an ecosystem as large as one that Bitcoin wants to play in that those two simply don't cut it. SHA-256 or stronger is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition to claim a designation of "secure". It's just one (important) piece of a much larger puzzle with tons of other pieces that have incredible weaknesses littered throughout, both obvious and more obscured.


I've used this analogy before, but it's taken us a long to make progress on getting SSL/TLS right (and it's still far from perfect) even though we've had rock solid primitives in things like AES for over 2 decades now (and if you include 3DES, much longer). That's not where the problems have been. It's all the parts that get built on top of those, their complex interactions, the potential side-channel attacks, implementation mistakes, social engineering, etc., etc. that have caused all the issues. The difference there (as I said in a previous post), thankfully, is that there are several steps/layers and often some mediating institutions in between those weaknesses and a bad guy's potential to take my money and leave me truly SOL.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

1) Energy. Did you read this paper posted several pages back?
https://www.techtransparencyproject...s%20Report.pdf

2) Security. Your view on security (and trust) is underdeveloped, simplistic and somewhat naïve. Your two main arguments are "hash is unbreakable" and "cold storage offline wallets".

There is SO much more that goes into the security (and relatedly, usability) of an ecosystem as large as Bitcoin wants to play in that those two simply don't cut it. SHA-256 or stronger is a necessary, but far from sufficient condition to claim a designation of "secure". It's just one (important) piece of a much larger puzzle with tons of other pieces that have incredible weaknesses littered throughout, both obvious and more obscured.


I've used this analogy before, but it's taken us a long to make progress on getting SSL/TLS right (and it's still far from perfect) even though we've had rock solid primitives in things like AES for over 2 decades now (and if you include 3DES, much longer). That's not where the problems have been. It's all the parts that get built on top of those, their complex interactions, the potential side-channel attacks, implementation mistakes, social engineering, etc., etc. that have caused all the issues. The difference there (as I said in a previous post), thankfully, is that there are several steps/layers and often some mediating institutions in between those weaknesses and a bad guy's potential to take my money and leave me truly SOL.

Naive? Let’s see who wrote that obviously biased account of Texas BTC mining you linked…

Techtransparencyproject.com? Nice official sounding name…but there’s another layer and motivation.

“Tech Transparency Project is a research initiative of Campaign for Accountability, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nonpartisan watchdog organization that uses research, litigation and aggressive communications to expose how decisions made behind the doors of corporate boardrooms and government offices impact Americans’ lives.”

So who is “Campaign for Accountability”? I’ll tell you, 3 Political “consultants” who’s motives are pure and unbiased I’m sure. (Sarcasm if I need to spell it out).

Their board of Directors:
Robin Brand
“Robin Brand is the president of RMB Strategies, a political consulting firm. Previously, she held leadership positions in the Victory Fund and Gill Action.”
A person with no technology background but one with interests in attacking the political leadership of Texas.

Nick Hackworth
“Nick Hackworth is the president of M Street Solutions. He has over a decade of experience in all levels of political research and most recently served as Director of Strategic Research for President Obama’s successful re-election campaign.”

Hmmm….maybe a pattern developing here…

Ben Fortney
Ben Fortney runs digital communications operations for the University of St. Augustine. He has almost two decades of experience in online advocacy and engagement for mission-driven organizations.

A shadowy guy specializing in “digital communications “? No way he could be the writer for hire to promote a political narrative to dupe the truly naive? Right?

Here’s the deal.

I look at the security history of BTC and the growth of the network and have come to the conclusion that it’s secure. Many highly technical companies and individuals and governments have come to the same conclusion.

Maybe we’re all wrong, maybe not.

If you’re not there, no problem. You are free to sit back and watch “naive” investors like me lose money and trust the Jamie Diamonds of the world to control the money you earn.

As for the energy usage, Bitcoin miners pay their way. The asset is not asking for a free ride. Let the free market determine if Bitcoin has value. (I’ve already noted some of the positive impacts of BTC mining).

In short, Bitcoin is for everyone, but NOT for everyone.

Everyone, do your own thing.

1 BTC still =1 BTC.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Naive? Let’s see who wrote that obviously biased account of Texas BTC mining you linked…

Techtransparencyproject.com? Nice official sounding name…but there’s another layer and motivation.

“Tech Transparency Project is a research initiative of Campaign for Accountability, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nonpartisan watchdog organization that uses research, litigation and aggressive communications to expose how decisions made behind the doors of corporate boardrooms and government offices impact Americans’ lives.”

So who is “Campaign for Accountability”? I’ll tell you, 3 Political “consultants” who’s motives are pure and unbiased I’m sure. (Sarcasm if I need to spell it out).

Their board of Directors:
Robin Brand
“Robin Brand is the president of RMB Strategies, a political consulting firm. Previously, she held leadership positions in the Victory Fund and Gill Action.”
A person with no technology background but one with interests in attacking the political leadership of Texas.

Nick Hackworth
“Nick Hackworth is the president of M Street Solutions. He has over a decade of experience in all levels of political research and most recently served as Director of Strategic Research for President Obama’s successful re-election campaign.”

Hmmm….maybe a pattern developing here…

Ben Fortney
Ben Fortney runs digital communications operations for the University of St. Augustine. He has almost two decades of experience in online advocacy and engagement for mission-driven organizations.

A shadowy guy specializing in “digital communications “? No way he could be the writer for hire to promote a political narrative to dupe the truly naive? Right?

Here’s the deal.

I look at the security history of BTC and the growth of the network and have come to the conclusion that it’s secure. Many highly technical companies and individuals and governments have come to the same conclusion.

Maybe we’re all wrong, maybe not.

If you’re not there, no problem. You are free to sit back and watch “naive” investors like me lose money and depend on the Jamie Diamonds of the world to control the money you earn.

As for the energy usage, Bitcoin miners pay their way. The asset is not asking for a free ride. Let the free market determine if Bitcoin has value. (I’ve already noted some of the positive impacts of BTC mining).

In short, Bitcoin is for everyone, but NOT for everyone.

Everyone, do your own thing.

1 BTC still =1 BTC.

You've been banging the drum that BTC is free from political bias, now you are saying this particular article is "obviously biased" because it's queer friendly and someone worked for Obama?

What would the Left find particularly threatening about Bitcoin, if the entity is nonpartisan and nonpolitical? I don't recall any parts of Obama's platform being anti-crypto, and haven't seen the most recent version of the GayAgenda, but don't recall any talking points that are against Bitcoin.

I don't get your angle on this particular piece and he obvious bias.

In other words - don't tell me that's it biased, tell me what's inaccurate.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

Naive? Let’s see who wrote that obviously biased account of Texas BTC mining you linked…

Techtransparencyproject.com? Nice official sounding name…but there’s another layer and motivation.

“Tech Transparency Project is a research initiative of Campaign for Accountability, a 501(c)(3) non-profit, nonpartisan watchdog organization that uses research, litigation and aggressive communications to expose how decisions made behind the doors of corporate boardrooms and government offices impact Americans’ lives.”

So who is “Campaign for Accountability”? I’ll tell you, 3 Political “consultants” who’s motives are pure and unbiased I’m sure. (Sarcasm if I need to spell it out).

Their board of Directors:
Robin Brand
“Robin Brand is the president of RMB Strategies, a political consulting firm. Previously, she held leadership positions in the Victory Fund and Gill Action.”
A person with no technology background but one with interests in attacking the political leadership of Texas.

Nick Hackworth
“Nick Hackworth is the president of M Street Solutions. He has over a decade of experience in all levels of political research and most recently served as Director of Strategic Research for President Obama’s successful re-election campaign.”

Hmmm….maybe a pattern developing here…

Ben Fortney
Ben Fortney runs digital communications operations for the University of St. Augustine. He has almost two decades of experience in online advocacy and engagement for mission-driven organizations.

A shadowy guy specializing in “digital communications “? No way he could be the writer for hire to promote a political narrative to dupe the truly naive? Right?

Here’s the deal.

I look at the security history of BTC and the growth of the network and have come to the conclusion that it’s secure. Many highly technical companies and individuals and governments have come to the same conclusion.

Maybe we’re all wrong, maybe not.

If you’re not there, no problem. You are free to sit back and watch “naive” investors like me lose money and trust the Jamie Diamonds of the world to control the money you earn.

As for the energy usage, Bitcoin miners pay their way. The asset is not asking for a free ride. Let the free market determine if Bitcoin has value. (I’ve already noted some of the positive impacts of BTC mining).

In short, Bitcoin is for everyone, but NOT for everyone.

Everyone, do your own thing.

1 BTC still =1 BTC.

Upthread I got upset that you used loaded conspiracy theory language and you got very defensive. Well, here is an example - stating that CEOs of banks will "control the money you earn" is loaded. Maybe not in your little corner of the earth, but to the rest of us, it is. Yes, one could question the amount of power that large banks and their CEOs have (full disclosure - I work for a different large bank and have good friends who work for JPM Chase). But they are a lot less of a threat to the world then a lot of others, including many of the revolutionaries who are trying to overthrow things.

Upthread I also said at least once that I was giving up on this thread. I think I need to follow through on this promise.

[Wheat/"/"/"]

What would the Left find particularly threatening about Bitcoin…

I don't get your angle on this particular piece and he obvious bias.
.

In short, the left is more comfortable with the state controlling monetary policy, and the right wants more individual freedom over their money.

We can’t go too far down this road here.

I do want to say that the links have nothing to do with a gay agenda and BTC, just were added to point out the person had political bias.

[OldPhiKap]

Alexander Hamilton was a liberal?

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

In short, the left is more comfortable with the state controlling monetary policy, and the right wants more individual freedom over their money.

We can’t go too far down this road here.

I do want to say that the links have nothing to do with a gay agenda and BTC, just were added to point out the person had political bias.

I mean, I just followed the links and information you supplied. Your information, not mine. Just wanted to better understand whatever it was that you were implying but not stating.

So, you think the Left has more reason to be anti-crypto than the Right?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

Upthread I got upset that you used loaded conspiracy theory language and you got very defensive. Well, here is an example - stating that CEOs of banks will "control the money you earn" is loaded. Maybe not in your little corner of the earth, but to the rest of us, it is. Yes, one could question the amount of power that large banks and their CEOs have (full disclosure - I work for a different large bank and have good friends who work for JPM Chase). But they are a lot less of a threat to the world then a lot of others, including many of the revolutionaries who are trying to overthrow things.

Upthread I also said at least once that I was giving up on this thread. I think I need to follow through on this promise.

It’s not a theory. It’s right in front of your eyes.

Have you not been watching the unelected Fed chairman make all the major monetary decisions lately?

[Wheat/"/"/"]

I mean, I just followed the links and information you supplied. Your information, not mine. Just wanted to better understand whatever it was that you were implying but not stating.

So, you think the Left has more reason to be anti-crypto than the Right?

No, I think many progressive or left leaning people want control over the money they earn too.

Those in the political power structure, both left and right, are the ones concerned with losing control of the money and putting it in an individual’s hand.

[snowdenscold]

My naïve description was in regards to my security point. You wrote almost your entire response about the energy point and its authors. Well, really just about the authors and not the content.

I stand by my statement that in regards to security and trust your views are underdeveloped, simplistic and somewhat naïve.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

My naïve description was in regards to my security point. You wrote almost your entire response about the energy point and its authors. Well, really just about the authors and not the content.

I stand by my statement that in regards to security and trust your views are underdeveloped, simplistic and somewhat naïve.

This was my point with:

In other words - don't tell me that's it biased, tell me what's inaccurate

[Kdogg]

As for the energy usage, Bitcoin miners pay their way. The asset is not asking for a free ride. Let the free market determine if Bitcoin has value. (IÂ’ve already noted some of the positive impacts of BTC mining).

Riot Blockchain says hold my beer while I pocket the millions the Texas electricity customers pay me to go offline so they can have A/C.

https://fortune.com/2022/08/13/riot-...d-subsidy/amp/

In other news, Ercot says Woah Nelly on new miner operations because itÂ’s causing havoc on the TX gird.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022...outputType=amp

Wheat, you might want to rethink that claim of bias on the energy report.
Honestly you would get less pushback if you would acknowledge that there are flaws in Bitcoin.
It’s easy to say “Yeah, it’s got problems but I like its possibilities” rather try to defend it as a utopian cure all.

[fidel]

It’s not a theory. It’s right in front of your eyes.

Have you not been watching the unelected Fed chairman make all the major monetary decisions lately?

Every Fed Chairman we have ever had has been unelected. FYI. Nominated by the President (in current case, Trump and Biden), and confirmed by Senate.

Just curious, do you think there should be no policy adjustments to our financial systems?

[snowdenscold]

Regarding "It's early days" - I thought this was kinda funny (from David Gerard):

Marc Andreesen, 2014: bitcoin is like the internet in 1994! - CoinDesk
Marc Andreesen, 2022, eight years later: bitcoin is like the internet in 1995! - a16z


(although yes, technically the latter is just some a16z employees writing for an official publication of theirs, not a specific Marc quote)

[Kdogg]

It’s not a theory. It’s right in front of your eyes.

Have you not been watching the unelected Fed chairman make all the major monetary decisions lately?

Do you know how the Federal Reserve works? The chairman doesn't rule by decree. It's a The Board of Governors (a bipartisan board) that makes the decisions.

Regarding "It's early days" - I thought this was kinda funny (from David Gerard):

Marc Andreesen, 2014: bitcoin is like the internet in 1994! - CoinDesk
Marc Andreesen, 2022, eight years later: bitcoin is like the internet in 1995! - a16z

(although yes, technically the latter is just some a16z employees writing for an official publication of theirs, not a specific Marc quote)

TikTok took over the world in that span.

[fidel]

Thanks for a reply that addressed my questions.

So I just have to suck it up and realize that I can’t save my money for the future without putting it at risk with investments because of inflation?

A) you have ignored every post outlining inflation is NOT simply increased money supply, and

B) economies are NOT a zero-sum game, and therefore increased money supply is inherently necessary for them to continue growth, and

C) you have an asset you say ‘keeps its value’ as a part of your long term buy and hold strategy, which seems like you are speculating on something you describe at times as non-speculative. If you think it retains value, buy as much as you can immediately and invest further from there. But you aren't doing that. And...

D) your selection of an asset that has dropped in value to about half of what it was at the beginning of the year as an asset that ‘retains its value’ is laughable at best.

There is nothing wrong with speculating on Bitcoin, but don't give it properties it cannot have. And do not demonize economic factors that are inherent and necessary for growth.

[-jk]

Despite suggestions to the contrary, Bitcoin is truly awful at energy/climate damage.

The abstract of the story published in Nature:

This paper provides economic estimates of the energy-related climate damages of mining Bitcoin (BTC), the dominant proof-of-work cryptocurrency. We provide three sustainability criteria for signaling when the climate damages may be unsustainable. BTC mining fails all three. We find that for 2016–2021: (i) per coin climate damages from BTC were increasing, rather than decreasing with industry maturation; (ii) during certain time periods, BTC climate damages exceed the price of each coin created; (iii) on average, each $1 in BTC market value created was responsible for $0.35 in global climate damages, which as a share of market value is in the range between beef production and crude oil burned as gasoline, and an order-of-magnitude higher than wind and solar power. Taken together, these results represent a set of sustainability red flags. While proponents have offered BTC as representing “digital gold,” from a climate damages perspective it operates more like “digital crude”.

-jk

[Skydog]

Despite suggestions to the contrary, Bitcoin is truly awful at energy/climate damage.

The abstract of the story published in Nature:

This paper provides economic estimates of the energy-related climate damages of mining Bitcoin (BTC), the dominant proof-of-work cryptocurrency. We provide three sustainability criteria for signaling when the climate damages may be unsustainable. BTC mining fails all three. We find that for 2016–2021: (i) per coin climate damages from BTC were increasing, rather than decreasing with industry maturation; (ii) during certain time periods, BTC climate damages exceed the price of each coin created; (iii) on average, each $1 in BTC market value created was responsible for $0.35 in global climate damages, which as a share of market value is in the range between beef production and crude oil burned as gasoline, and an order-of-magnitude higher than wind and solar power. Taken together, these results represent a set of sustainability red flags. While proponents have offered BTC as representing “digital gold,” from a climate damages perspective it operates more like “digital crude”.

-jk

Climate change is a myth of liberals. The worldwide increase in massive fires, greater intensity hurricanes and cyclones, ice cap melting, droughts and floods are just coincidental.

[Jeffrey]

Climate change is a myth of liberals. The worldwide increase in massive fires, greater intensity hurricanes and cyclones, ice cap melting, droughts and floods are just coincidental.

Regardless, using a very substantial amount of energy (mostly, natural gas) cannot be good for the planet.

Danger, danger Will Robinson! That does not compute!

[OldPhiKap]

Energy = mass times the speed of light squared.

The universe has a near-infinite amount of both mass, time, and light.

I don’t see what the problem is tbh.