Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.
Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design. The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill. With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost  Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat. Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend etc. Mind to share the number? Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people. The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD. The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill. Hope this helps. Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.) The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide. |
|
|
|
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world. Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design. The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill. With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat. Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend etc. Mind to share the number? |
|
|
|
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-doesn-t-waste-electricity-it-s-used-for-security-1446482572Bitcoin’s Hashing Computations are Not Useless
The key point to take away from this excerpt of Antonopoulos’s presentation is that all of the hashing power pointed at the Bitcoin network is not useless. All of that processing power and electricity is, essentially, being used to create a new public good -- the blockchain. Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.
|
|
|
|
How much electricity and other energy goes into fiat?
Probably more than into bitcoin, depending on what metrics you use. Caveat: Fiat economy is at least a million times bigger than Bitcoin, so unless you think fiat uses x1,000,000 more power than bitcoin, this is irrelevant. Bonus: fiat is primarily used for IRL business and to pay for legit IRL needs, like roads, baby formula, public schools, etc., etc. Bitcoin is primarily used for laundering fiat, gambling, ransomware, and trying to buy overpriced drugs on shifty DNMs. Glad I could be of some help Your simple accounting is wrong and if you even think your rubbish is helping somebody, you might be the one needing help. Look, if you got nothing, just say "I got nothing" & thank me. Don't mope, no one likes that petulant shit.  You are too arrogant to see even the simplest facts, so discussing with no content people like you is just leading nowhere. Get a brain! |
|
|
|
Large groups of well paid, organized, funded professionals with clear objectives and good management - (like R3, hyperledger, ethereum, others) are sure making those Core programmers look like the silly little whiny bitches that they are. Core is going NOWHERE and getting there pretty damn fast. Meanwhile, very sophisticated advance is being done every day in other part of crypto/blockchain.
This is 100% the end of bitcoin as we know it. Good thing too. This 'open source', 'no leadership', 'no organization' thing was always a load of bullshit.
You have to accept, that Bitcoin is the first and the number one crypto currency with the biggest community and it is here to stay. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is basically destroyed now with 70% of the mining controlled by China, soon to be 98+%, and with Blockstream implementing their SegWit soft fork Trojan Horse so as Matonis admits can end up increasing the 21 million coins limit.
The entire ecosystem is headed for a clusterfuck.
I honestly believe this is the truth. What is there to add ? ~CfA~ BTW, you are talking about this Matonis guy, who has no doubt about Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto? Sorry to dig that up, bud. |
|
|
|
Is this a bad attempt at advertising the dying forum that you moderate? Post the charts here or go back to that cave. That's an interesting chart, but what do you make out of it, LiteCoinGuy?
Example conclusion 1: The decision to remove commit access from Gavin is justified as he doesn't contribute anymore. Example conclusion 2: On the seventh day, God rested but Pieter Wuille submitted a pull request. [1]
[1] - Source. 4 people already said "thanks for the valuable informations" so why so much hate? the info is free for everyone. and it's a good one. Thx LCG |
|
|
|
How much electricity and other energy goes into fiat?
Probably more than into bitcoin, depending on what metrics you use. Caveat: Fiat economy is at least a million times bigger than Bitcoin, so unless you think fiat uses x1,000,000 more power than bitcoin, this is irrelevant. Bonus: fiat is primarily used for IRL business and to pay for legit IRL needs, like roads, baby formula, public schools, etc., etc. Bitcoin is primarily used for laundering fiat, gambling, ransomware, and trying to buy overpriced drugs on shifty DNMs. Glad I could be of some help Your simple accounting is wrong and if you even think your rubbish is helping somebody, you might be the one needing help. |
|
|
|
|
How much electricity and other energy goes into fiat?
|
|
|
|
The hash that proves, that no one of you guys is SN:  |
|
|
|
You are Satoshi Nakamoto, when you can decrypt this: -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=NGKO
-----END PGP MESSAGE-----
|
|
|
|
Here, I'll start.
I am Satoshi Nakamoto.
Sorry for endlessly repeating, but sign with the Satoshi key 5EC948A1 or STFU. |
|
|
|
Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power. Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control. Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto. That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.
The agencies would have an interest to make bitcoin big. They can use it for their own operations if needed and they can follow the trail of the money. Since everyone know that, for example the nsa, controls the internet traffic of whole countries. So it would be not really hard to fight terrorism and similar things like that. Well, pushing in bad code that is not found might be another nice gimmick but so far I think it was not successfull. Too many observe things closely. The idea of inserting "bad code" under the eyes of everyone is not new: This challenge appeared on an internal alias dedicated to C++. It was issued by Mike Vine, a developer here at Microsoft who agreed to let us share it with the mighty Visual C++ blog readers:
This challenge came from me thinking about a simple bug which could be turned into a security vulnerability, so I thought I’d give it a go and try to code a plausibly deniable piece of code which looks innocent but is actually dangerous. I managed to actually go further than that, and produced something, that whilst unlikely, could possibly have come from non-malicious but sloppy coding.
So your challenge is – if you choose to accept it – analyze the sample code file “main.c” (attached) and try to find the (fairly obvious) security faux pas and ‘accidental’ bug which causes the security faux pas to be exploitable. The 7th Underhanded C Contest is now open.
The goal of the contest is to write code that is as readable, clear, innocent and straightforward as possible, and yet it must fail to perform at its apparent function. To be more specific, it should do something subtly evil. Every year, we will propose a challenge to coders to solve a simple data processing problem, but with covert malicious behavior. Examples include miscounting votes, shaving money from financial transactions, or leaking information to an eavesdropper. The main goal, however, is to write source code that easily passes visual inspection by other programmers. |
|
|
|
Well, in their view it is not a big enough threat to attack and spend millions on gaining a majority of the hashing power. Once it is determined to be a threat it will be too large for them to buy their way in to control. Plus the second they gain control is when all of the money floods out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto. That is the beauty of it, we are not forced in to using the currency so attacking it results in wasted money as the users move out of Bitcoin and in to a different crypto-currency.
You make the 3 letter guys look like idiots. |
|
|
|
NSA or any other agency won't gain anything by destroying Bitcoin because it's not a threat to the national security of any country right now and I don't think it will be any time soon. Plus Bitcoin is open-source right? So any tampering with the source code or placing backdoors would be easily noticed wouldn't it?
You really think, that a currency, that is openly competing against the USD and the banking system (and any other fiat) is not a thread? Not even after the USG has shutdown the Paypal account of Wikileaks and they started to accept Bitcoin afterwards? Not even after the SilkRoad case? Check this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1462981.msg14768412#msg14768412 |
|
|
|
They will need more hash power than the whole world mining today to do a 51% attack, which is probably nit gonna happen. There is no other way to block bitcoins.
No, that was what we believed at the start. But it proved to be a valid attack vector to attack bitcoin through it's client. Regardless of what the protocol will look like that will change the ways bitcoin goes. You could attack bitcoin through core devs or through alternative forking clients. It's best to do it both. Yes, bitcoiners could chose, but be honest... most bitcoiners will use what is presented. Only a core of them will chose with some checking before. I agree. Still I would like to know, if core team has already discussed this infiltration topic. If not ... then why not? I'm not sure. The dev team was quite hidden for a long time. No real contact with the community. In my eyes that only changed after they wanted to bring out segwit and ln and found that they face a real big opposition. Then they started to argument and speak with the community alot more. Though if you think about it... it does not need to be the NSA to harm the protocol, it can be the real world job of the developers or something similar that would not be allowed if they were politicians. It's not hard to find things that can be questioned. gmaxwell made a posting here implying the infiltration of the Bitcoin Foundation, but he didn't answer if this topic (infiltration of core team) has been discussed by core devs already. Though I agree, that it doesn't necessarily need some national agency to write bad code  |
|
|
|
|
Kleiman would have been using some of his 1 mio Bitcoins to get a better medical treatment. He seemed to prefer dying broke.
|
|
|
|
They will need more hash power than the whole world mining today to do a 51% attack, which is probably nit gonna happen. There is no other way to block bitcoins.
No, that was what we believed at the start. But it proved to be a valid attack vector to attack bitcoin through it's client. Regardless of what the protocol will look like that will change the ways bitcoin goes. You could attack bitcoin through core devs or through alternative forking clients. It's best to do it both. Yes, bitcoiners could chose, but be honest... most bitcoiners will use what is presented. Only a core of them will chose with some checking before. I agree. Still I would like to know, if core team has already discussed this infiltration topic. If not ... then why not? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
