This isn't the biggest issue in crypto, because it does not affect Bitcoin, and Bitcoin is the most popular cryptocurrency. It's a problem of shitcoins with smart contracts and dapps, and even if it was fixed, it won't change much, because that ecosystem is full of scams anyway. The real problem is that there's still a lot of hype about blockchain and tokens, and newbies actually believe that they have some merit and will make them rich.

Yes, I saw your post, but you didn't provide any real world examples of such effect. But there examples of mining creating large demand for fossil fuels power. Both cases can be true at the same time, but practice seems to be more skewed towards the fossil fuels. It could be that the effect that you described is not that important in the grand scheme of things for renewable energy, and other factors that play role in its adoption play far bigger role.

I don't think you are using that term properly.


How can you study the market? No one has any idea where the price is going. If someone could consistently predict it, they would be a billionaire. But so far the only people who got filthy rich from crypto are OG hodlers. Who probably were already doing well financially, if they resisted the temptation to cash out.

It's just like saying "do your own research". Without telling newbies how to do their research in-depth, it's a meaningless phrase.

People say that Bitcoin mining incentivizes green energy, but isn't it incentivizing all energy? Miners are looking for the cheapest electricity possible, if in some location it is generated by fossil fuels, it's not their problem. There were reports that in some places mining resulted in re-opening of a previously closed coal power plant.

I personally don't feel the need to argue that Bitcoin is not contributing to global warming or pollution. Bitcoin is not perfect, nothing is, it's just one of its downsides. It's not big enough to cause any significant problems for the world.

It depends from country to country. Some governments, or even just local banks, like to put obstacles for Bitcoin users. Others ignore it. China and Western countries have much harsher financial monitoring than the rest of the world.

But I agree that the tendency is moving towards more restrictions, regulators are catching up to the new methods of sending money.

Only 15% of oil is used for non-energy purposes. So it's not like dramatic reduction of oil production will affect chemical industry proportionately.

Using fossil fuels for energy is not sustainable in the long run. Not only because of the global warming, but simply because at the current rate we will run out of them in a few centuries and the who civilization will collapse.


Some of these projects, like nuclear fusion, are too expensive for venture investors.

Airgap-jumping malware is rare, because it's harder to implement and it's too specific, while hackers are trying to target as many systems as possible. But this doesn't mean that you should ignore it. If you are  transferring data with USB sticks between your laptop and other device, then it's not really cold storage. You could wipe the USB before unplugging it from the laptop to prevent any data from leaving the laptop, but this won't prevent potential malware from doing something like replacing addresses.

Since your laptop has a camera, you could transfer unsigned transaction to the laptop by scanning their QR code, then scan the QR code of signed transaction with your phone or other device with camera. This is nearly the highest level of security you can achieve with this setup, because you can be sure that the only data that flows in and out of cold storage is the data of your transactions.

Yes, Bitcoin doesn't have many of the problems that are present with banks. But Bitcoin has its own problems instead. So instead of a woman unable to get her money, it could be a woman misplacing her private key and losing her coins forever.

It's a very poor argument to say that Bitcoin is better than banks because something that happens with banks doesn't happen with it. User experience is a complex issue and those who want to build a case how Bitcoin is superior should actually make a complex analysis and not point out some single anecdotes.

SOURCE
[/quote]

That's not what happens. 51% attack can undo the last blocks and replace them with new blocks, but the blocks still have to be valid. They can't edit the blockchain and transfer someone's bitcoins. Your coins can only be stolen if you received them recently. The more confirmations your coins have, the more expensive it is to steal them. It's not about just owning 51% of power, it's about paying for it to execute the attack. So if you receive $10,000,000 worth of BTC, it's better to wait for 50 confirmations or more, before viewing transaction as final. Although there has never been a documented case of a 51% attack on Bitcoin. But it happened with many altcoins.

Why would there be an army of bots if all it takes is one moderator to remove the topic? It's /r/Bitcoin's policy to not feed the trolls. Luckily for you, this forum doesn't have such policy, so feel free to troll Bitcoin as much as you want.

And good luck with embedding message into blockchain, with current fees you'll be paying a lot of money to embed your text, and even then it's not exactly easily readable, as data embedding is not a standard feature of Bitcoin's blockchain, but rather a by-product. So without knowing where and how to look, no one will see your message.

You are making it look like Bitcoin's energy consumption is low, but actually it demonstrates the opposite. Gaming is a large sector of entertainment industry, it already surpassed movies and there are around 3 billion gamers. And how many there are Bitcoiners? 50 or 100 million? And how many of them use it as a payment method rather than investment?

Bitcoin has a bad energy consumption to utility ratio. And there's likely to way to improve that. But this isn't some critical flaw that makes Bitcoin unviable. Not everything in this world can be 100% efficient, that's just the reality.

Almost every people who are into crypto don't understand anything about cryptocurrency protocols, cryptography, economics, finance. They get so easily fooled by promises of high profits, because they are just retail investors, for many crypto is their first experience with investment. And sadly they don't listen to warnings like this, we are at the point where everyone thinks that 99% of crypto is scams, but that they shitcoin that they bought is one of the few ones. Only when people will realize that every coin except Bitcoin is a scam will the market stop being a circus that it is now.

If it's your main method, that's a horrible idea. Even if it's a second backup it's still bad. Maybe it's acceptable as a tenth backup or something. This backup is hard to restore, you'd have to visit a dentist and there's a risk that it will fail because it will get damaged during removal or it will degrade naturally.

The idea of carrying your coins literally in your body is interesting though, but I don't think that it is necessary for most people. It could be useful for spies, people on the run, nomads and others who don't have a stable and reliable shelter and are constantly under risk of losing their possessions. But it's probably better to put a microchip under your skin.

Government jobs will exist for as long as governments exist, and they are a significant portion of the job market. Meanwhile crypto jobs are just a tiny niche with very uncertain career growth prospects, because who knows if crypto will still be popular in 10 years? The best crypto jobs are just regular jobs that are applied to crypto. Programming, advertising, management and so on.

Honestly, it's very detached from reality to think that crypto is actually replacing some government function, that's just a fairy tale that crypto evangelists aka shills say.

Mining equipment is much more expensive than an electric heater, so if you're not running it 24/7, it would take a lot of time to break even with a simple electric heater, and by that time the ASIC would likely be obsolete and unprofitable to run, because its hashrate won't keep up with the network. There's probably very few cases where such system could work, maybe somewhere in the Arctic where you need to warm something all the time.

If you don't want problems with your bank account, then trade for cash or use payment methods that won't enforce your country's crypto ban - PayPal, Venmo, foreign banks.  Trade only with people who have good reputation, otherwise you might get scammed and police won't help you, and be wary that undercover cops could be posing as traders. And don't talk about Bitcoin with anyone, not your friends or your family, because words travel far and it can attract law enforcement.

What makes you think that they are worried? When Warren Buffet or Bill Gates attack Bitcoin, it's not necessarily because they are afraid of it. They are influential people and they share their thoughts on global events, especially if someone asks them. And if they criticize Bitcoin, it's not automatically because they are rich. There are also rich people who defend it, or poor people who don't like it.

Altcoins are not taking Bitcoin's share of the adoption pie. Cases of altcoin use as a currency are almost non-existent. The reason why Bitcoin is not getting more adopted is because it loses competition against fiat payment systems. They simply have better user experience.

Physical space for holding money is not precious, it's absolutely not a problem, unless you're a Walter White.


And online banks are available 24/7 too. Or PayPal. ATMs too.


"Memes and GIF games (idk what's a GIF game" are not a good argument for finance. Actually makes it sound like a scam. And just because people have an intention of making a better financial system doesn't mean that it is already better.


Bitcoin network doesn't have intermediaries, but its ecosystem does. So if you're using centralized exchanges or a merchant is using a payment processor that convetrs BTC to fiat, there will still be fees.

And as for fighting government corruption, it's still just a theory. There's no succesful cases in the world where a government adopted Bitcoin and it helped solve corruption.

Ukraine holds only $1.5B in gold, the rest is cash and other assets. And it can be held in many places, including Western countries. Plus there were preparations before Feb 24, lots of valuable stuff was moved out of Kyiv, like government servers and documents.

Putin attacked Kyiv because capturing the capital is always one of the biggest strategic goals of any war. There's no economic justification here, the costs of waging war, the effects of sanctions are orders of magnitude higher than any potential spoils of war. This war has ideological roots, no the economic ones.