this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2025
9 points (76.5% liked)

Bitcoin

1417 readers
3 users here now

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I have been using crypto since 2017, made plenty of dumb trades which caused me to lose out a lot. Currently my portfolio is about 80% BTC and while the new USA admin seems they may do more damage than good to the crypto space I'm still positive about Bitcoin.

This sub seems like a meme or anti-btc sub mostly. Anybody here who isn't that way?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's an environmental disaster where the worst people in the world use vast resources to power and cool entropy machines

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

Is fiat better?

We drop interest rates in order to spurn more consumption, to hit an inflation target as technology lowers the price of goods, what would you call that?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Yes, fiat is a better ledger system for currency. Proof-of-work crypto has gotta be the most energy inefficient design in the history of humanity.

what would you call that?

I call it capitalism. As long as the bourgeois controls money - whether that's gold, fiat or crypto curriencies - then it's going to drive a system based on infinite growth and consumption

[–] [email protected] 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago) (1 children)

The goal of PoW is to be resilient and neutral in order to build a secure consensus from parties that don't know or trust each others and it's the most efficient way to achieve that goal. We currently don't know other consensus mechanism that would be as resilient or neutral. There is Proof-of-Less-Work which is an interesting innovation from Alephium but it's still based on PoW.

How the bourgeois controls money in Bitcoin ? How can infinite growth happen on a fixed supply ? How consumption would increase if money tends to gain value over time ?

Money ≠ Capitalism

Money is a primitive technology discovered by human way before scribing. In fact the first form of scribing appearing is money. It's so old and so embeded in our civilization that we don't really know how it works or how it emerge. We have no proof that bartering existed before money, the idea that money was made to fix bartering issues is false.

Bitcoin ≠ currency

Bitcoin is not a currency, it's a decentralized p2p network of trust building a consensus over a common immutable history that qualify as truth. Money is the first application of it but we already have other usecase such as the free software OpenTimeStamp used during Guatemala's election for exemple.

Edit : Grammar

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Money ≠ Capitalism

I never said or implied otherwise. I actually implied the opposite. Money isn't inherently controlled by capitalists, but a capitalist society needs to have the bourgeoisie controlling the money.

How the bourgeois controls money in Bitcoin ?

Because they own the massive "mining" operations that do the vast majority of the entropy generation. Those datacenters are capital. They also control the markets that determine the speculative value of bitcoin.

We have no proof that bartering existed before money, the idea that money was made to fix bartering issues is false.

I never said or implied that. I'm actually a fan of David Graeber who wrote about that in Debt: the first 5000 years

Bitcoin is not a currency, it’s a decentralized p2p network of trust building a consensus over a common immutable history that qualify as truth

You're describing the concept of a blockchain. Bitcoin is an attempt to use a blockchain to implement a currency. Of course it has failed as a currency, so they've changed the purpose to be a financial instrument that's easy to speculate on

We currently don’t know other consensus mechanism that would be as resilient or neutral

This is the crux of why bitcoin is a shit idea. You can't be neutral on a moving train. It's far more efficient to establish actual trust instead of chasing a mathematical ideal of trust.

The core idea you're getting at is: because of the blockchain, you can be certain that when satoshis are added to your bitcoin wallet, the transaction was authentic, and as long as your key isn't compromised, you can trust that it will remain in your wallet. It's a neat mathematical trick, but you still need to be certain that your computer is secure, that the person isn't sending you money tied to a crime, that any third parties being used haven't built in backdoors, that your wallet isn't physically destroyed, and so on and so on.

It makes much more sense to have a handful of trusted entities (like with ssl certificates)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 weeks ago

The problem I see is people always want to raid the cookie jar. People want easy answers to crisis caused by previously misallocated capital, and the easy answer is to steal from fixed income, forcing people onto the risk curve.

This then dramatically inflates home values, leading to fewer children, and makes the rich richer via the cantillon effect. It also creates a debt trap via unfunded entitlements, which with fewer children just leads to an avalanche of debt, as politicians promise to keep the system running via more borrowing. Centralized control leads to a tragedy of the commons in our currency.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago)

I agree with your ultimate assessment of money, but the security mechanism of bitcoin is an order or two less energy demanding than the security mechanism of the dollar. The US military is the largest consumer of energy on the planet. Projection is how champions of US hegemony attack bitcoin. Theirs aren't the best arguments for you to use, keep it simple and stick to the base condemnation of money and crypto's technological acceleration of it's potency.