397
submitted 5 months ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 182 points 5 months ago

Such a stupid fucking idea. The idea of cryptocurrencies aside, Bitcoin's system of mining is peak waste.

[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

It's great that the idea got implemented in ways that don't have the ecological footprint Bitcoin has!
I'm glad Bitcoin brought this idea to life. But it's about time for Bitcoin to resign.

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 59 points 5 months ago

Bitcoin isn’t a good idea. It’s based on assumptions about how the world works that don’t actually exist and, the costs for finding a solution to these assumptions are so large that they make the product bad.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I think Monero has use cases (besides money laundering). And Monero is basically what people who don't understand cryptocurrency think Bitcoin is.

[-] Fudoshin@feddit.uk 11 points 5 months ago
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

You already have booze, cannabis, caffeine, sugar, and Tylenol. How shit is existence that those reliable chemicals, safe in moderation, aren't enough? Isn't it insane that you can just drink pop with a whiskey chaser and smoke a joint?

Yeah I am solidly on the legalization train but I am still allowed to wonder why anyone would want to try meth or cocaine or anything like those when we got already is so much better and safer.

Now if you excuse me I am going to go drink a beer and then pop an edible, both of which I bought legally from boring ass stores.

[-] Fudoshin@feddit.uk 4 points 4 months ago

Have you done meth? It may answer your question as to why anyone would do it.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I have not, I got legal weed and have seen what meth does to people.

[-] daltotron@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

I dunno, sometimes people want, say, hormones to transition, but can't get them from a doctor. Hormone blockers, stuff like that, so it's kind of not entirely useless. Weed isn't legal in lots of places still either, and if your government sucks, it's always good for buying [redacted], and stuff like that, but then you're probably just getting entrapped by feds, so that's not always a great situation.

I'm not going to say that the idea itself is entirely without merit, but I do think it kind of got corrupted almost immediately after it was conceived, because silicon valley keeps wanting to attract venture capital to fund whatever completely unprofitable idea, before it gets shelled out and zombified for short term profits, and apparently the best way to make any money in capitalism is basically just with loaded gambling and this is a great method to enable that. It's a pretty good minor analogue for what capitalism does generally, but also what it specifically did to a lot of this techno-libertarianism idealism that was spouting out almost constantly form the late 80's until, I wanna say like, around the 2010's, is when it maybe stopped being such a thing.

[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I don't think I was hinting at an opinion on the LGBT with what I wrote.

[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 4 points 5 months ago

I beg to partly differ.
The idea of being able to transfer digital value safely without middlemen is great and has never been available before.
The implementation is bad in the sense that it's ecologically disastrous and economically unfit.

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 31 points 5 months ago

Bitcoin was developed on the idea that no one can be trusted and that everyone will act selfishly for their own self interest. This is patently not true, while many are selfish and are not to be trusted, a truly trustless society does not and cannot exist. People do come together and work in collectives and organisations and people do defer to the expertise of others. Imagine not being able to go to the doctor without first getting a medical degree because you can’t trust what the doctor will tell you or having to learn electrical engineering before having any electrical work done in your home. That is the ideology that helps spawn the no middleman trustless system that formed bitcoin in 2009. The truth is people don’t want to do that an the easy way to demonstrate this is to simply point at the huge amount of transactions that occur off-chain through exchanges (who serve as middlemen) vs the pitiful small number of transactions that occur on chain.

Trustlessness comes with huge costs. Firstly, you have huge amounts of redundant work to prove/verify everything. That’s why bitcoin is so terribly inefficient. Rather than having some you trust approve a transaction you now need to spend huge resources solving useless puzzles to prove that your transactions is the real deal. Secondly, without a middleman there is no one to hold to account. Make a mistake on your transaction? Your money is gone. Get scammed? Same deal. Accidentally leak your private key? Ditto.

Bitcoin is also based on the ideas of Austrian economics. Basically a ridiculous field of economics that doesn’t work. There are reasons why we left the gold standard and there are reasons why so called ‘sound money’ is a terrible idea. Just to simply illustrate. Bitcoiners love to celebrate the first transaction for real world goods using bitcoin. Some guy bought two pizza’s for 10000 btc around 2010 or something. They mock now for how much ‘money’ he wasted on two pizza’s. What good is a currency if you’re too afraid to spend it because its ‘value’ might skyrocket. In no uncertain terms Austrian economics is incredibly stupid. Bitcoin is built on this ideology.

Also Bitcoin is full of middlemen. Mining pools tend to congregate into large organisations lead by a small group of individuals due to economies of scale making larger pools more efficient than smaller pools and, because bitcoin has no real economy underneath it everything has to run back to fiat currency at some point. Whether you’re a baker or a drug dealer you have bills that need to be paid in fiat at some point; therefore, you need to exchange your crypto to fiat and, this is almost unanimously controlled by large exchanges who act as middle men. A big government like the US blocks the exchanges and bitcoin and crypto in general basically dies.

So in summary, bitcoin is based on the idea that no one can be trusted, which is false, that Austrian economics is a good idea, which is wrong and finally that it’s free from middlemen which it isn’t. The assumptions that made bitcoin are wrong.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It’s not that no one can be trusted. It’s that there is enough bad people and incentive to do real damage to everyone else (even the majority of good people) and unfortunately they may need to be protected from that. If we get another Great Recession that doesn’t snap back bitcoin will have its value proven, if that doesn’t happen then it’s a waste of time and effort. It’s really more of a hedge at this point until things play out

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Bitcoin tracks the wider economy and as a risky ’asset’ its ‘value’ fluctuates more aggressively than safer assets. It’s basically the first thing unloaded when times look difficult. Trust me it won’t be a hedge. It never has before and will never now. Secondly, the problem with centring your entire philosophy on trustlessness is that when you introduce a little bit of trust you defeat the whole purpose of trustlessness in the first place. The moment you have a middle man that can block transactions, change transactions or interfere in transactions in other ways your trustless model collapses, and if you argue that it’s alright this actor is well vetted and trustworthy then it begs the question. Why not have all of your transactions managed by that actor and just drop the vestigial decentralised nonsense in the first place. To illustrate my point for those who don’t understand what I’m getting at. All cryptocurrencies are useless at verifying anything in the real world. Think things like supply chain verification for example. Why? Well it’s all because of something called the oracle problem. You need somebody to verify and enter the physical world’s data into the blockchain, the oracle. The problem is that there is no way to prove that the oracle is telling the truth. You have to trust the oracle; however, the oracle can lie. The oracle and feed you bad data and modify the blockchain. Your trustless model has collapsed. You might as well just find an oracle you can trust and abandon all the wasteful blockchain nonsense at this point.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Bitcoin spiked when the latest banking crisis emerged and several US banks collapsed. This is not bitcoin tracking the wider economy. Bitcoin should track the wider economy only in a sense of cost of compute, electricity, against inflation and supply. Hypothetically if demand was to remain exactly the same for the next 10 years the price would increase.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Here's the thing -- do you trust the alternative power holders more? Sure, it's less centralized, but at the end of the day there's still power brokers.

[-] SuckMyWang@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

No not really but at least there’s transparency

[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

So many words Bitcoin and so little about the idea behind it.
Are you aware that not each and every cryptocurrency that was created after Bitcoin is bad?
Although admittedly most are. Yet some took the idea further and implemented better versions of value transfer, that doesn't rely on middlemen.

[-] assassinatedbyCIA@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

The article is about bitcoin so I talked about bitcoin. But it doesn’t really matter because all cryptocurrencies are bad. They are all negative sum internet funny money that is used by and controlled by some of the people who you would least want to be able to do that.

[-] zergtoshi@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You replied to my comment, which was broader than Bitcoin alone; you could've considered that.
Not all cryptocurrencies are bad in my book. Let's agree to disagree.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

So you're basically saying that Bitcoin is the libertarian of currencies. Blech.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 29 points 5 months ago

It's such a great idea that a good use case for it hasn't been invented in over a decade.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 3 points 4 months ago

Its the same use case as cash.

If all money goes digital, you lose the ability to make unsupervised purchases.

Harr harr, yes drugs. But also condoms or plan b pills, which magically became a political target recently. Or any other previously innocuous thing that could someday shift into a political target.

That tracking also means anyone who buys that data can profile you. Card charges at the same store every work day? Someone who cares knows where you go for lunch. Maybe its a stalker, maybe just an advertiser trying to get you specific ads. Do you want either having that info? Buying the same specific goods for meals, or hobbies, on a regular basis? Ad companies love that, they can up prices on things your data says is a dependant purchase.

You dont want your entire purchase history trackable. Its not about having things to hide, its about not wanting someone to be able to pick you apart like a lab rat. Cash helps this, but lots of groups and people want a cashless society.

If cashless ever becomes a reality, you want a digital cash replacement to already be in place, if not underway. Better that the concept gets worked out now while we still have cash, than scrambling to set it up in a future where cash retires.

[-] assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

We already have cash, so as it stands, Bitcoin is far more complicated and energy intensive for no meaningful alternative reason. You're effectively arguing the wrong point, and only skirt over the real concern: a lot of people and groups want a cashless society.

Is it worth it to use Bitcoin over cash, and generate emissions, to have that digital alternative to cash? What are the reasons that these people and groups want a totally cashless society, where it would be an onerous burden to just cash for drugs, condoms, plan B, etc?

Until there's a compelling reason that is worth the energy draw and required technology, it's going to continue to be derided.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 4 months ago

"Governments and businesses are starting to push for retiring physical, gov backed money. Having a digital currency that cant be retired by a government is a good fallback plan to prevent getting stuck in a digital only system that doesnt have untraced currency."

"Uh, but we already have cash? Why would I use that over cash, which I have right now? My cash buys me drugs now, why should I swap?"

I literally cannot help you if you cant address what I say.

[-] piecat@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

You can't use cash on the Internet. Has to be an account of some kind

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

If, if, if! But it hasn't. So there's still no real reason to use Bitcoin today. I'm glad the concept and ecosystem exists, it might come in handy, but there's a shit ton of resources going to it, today so what is its social benefit today? Again I'm fine with Bitcoin existing, but if the only use case it's being used for right now is illegal goods and market speculation, how does it warrant the insane amount of resources it sucks up today? If we end up needing it in the future we can ramp it up, but right now I think there's way too much resources being sucked up by it for not enough societal benefit.

[-] wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 4 months ago

"Sure Ill be glad to vaccinate if I get covid. If, if, if! But I dont have it now! Theres no real reason to vaccinate now, I dont need it!"

The point of a precaution is to do it before the concerned event happens. And when multiple countries have politicians discussing cashless, and with actual businesses beginning to stop taking cash in favor of card, the advent of the retiring of physical money is an actual event that is visible on the horizon.

You will need the existence of fully finished infrastructure for digital cash before you can safely use it. We. Do. Not. Have. That. Infrastructure. If cash is killed next year? Youre fucked. We need to figure that out before we need it to be online and usable.

And while no, bitcoin specifically is likely not the answer, it is the reason why people are hunting for a better solution.

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The production of Bitcoin right now is like creating billions of vaccines that have a 1 year expiration date, or getting 10 vaccines now when you're only supposed to have one. You can develop software without doing it so inefficiently that we're spending a ridiculous amount of energy in the interim. Having more mining now doesn't make the protocol better for later. I don't see how the resources going to it now are not ridiculously inefficiently used.

[-] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 months ago

You just think that because you don't use it lol

For a technology sub I swear most of y'all are tech illiterate

[-] Daxtron2@startrek.website 4 points 4 months ago

This is a news community lol. But I agree even over on the tech community the idiocy is pretty rampant.

load more comments (36 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2024
397 points (93.1% liked)

News

21693 readers
4369 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS