I have half a suspicion that it's the fact that it's burning through lots of fuel that is driving it's adoption. Processes in general seem to be driven by a kind of 'pressure' between low entropy and high entropy regions. This includes life itself. If life has a purpose it is to increase the flow across these low/high entropy regions. I don't think it's too outlandish to suppose some kind of hidden process that drives systems in general to optimise this flow. Bitcoin is just such a system, it's doing this transfer perfectly. Something tells me it's going to be extremely difficult to stamp out and I will be surprised if it does not continue to rise in value and energy consumption at an exponential rate, unless something systematic is done to disrupt it's progression. Buy bitcoin.
95% of transaction data is fake. We have no idea what adoption actually looks like. [1] The bitcoin price is "based on a true story" in true Hollywood fashion. Its design makes it impossible to stop the rampant and obvious manipulation. The game is rigged. No amount of technical analysis or philosophy is going to help you predict the outcome of a rigged game.
Yes and no. They’re not on-chain but so what? Exchanges are the sole fiat gateways, which in turn determines the exchange rate between BTC and fiat, which in turn determined the exchange rate between BTC and goods and services. These off-chain transactions determine how many apples a bitcoin gets you. The net is then settled onto the blockchain. They’re relevant. As relevant as any Lightning transaction, or is LN not “real bitcoin” either?
You tried to claim we knew nothing about Bitcoin's adoption because 95% of exchange trades are fake. I'm telling you this is irrelevant. Exchange trades tell us nothing about Bitcoin's adoption. They are just noise from wash traders, crooked exchanges, arbitragers, etc.
To gauge Bitcoin's adoption you need to look at on-chain transactions, not exchange trades. Makes sense?
I'm curious why they should get a pass. They're a first-class part of the ecosystem, and pretending exchanges don't exist to goose the numbers feels dishonest. Further, it's the exchanges that set the "price" of bitcoin relative to fiat, which in turn sets the exchange rate for BTC to goods in on-chain transactions. Unless you're suggesting there's an "exchange" price for goods and a "black market" price for goods that each value Bitcoin differently?
Because as per your linked article 95% of it is fake. Supply of fiat money is also „fake“ in a sense that it’s arbitrary controlled by one entity per country at most.
Do you not think there's a meaningful difference between privately-run exchanges fraudulently manipulating the price to enrich themselves (to clear short or long positions off their books, pump the value of their assets, etc) -- and central banks who operate on behalf of the people of their respective countries to ensure a stable and reliable money supply?
I think in the long run there’s none. Look at devaluations in various countries. Or cut of paper money circulation in India. Or the $8Trln “printed” by the US to balance out Chinese foreign reserves (also $8Trln at the time by coincidence)
It appears you need to do some research on the role of central banks and the federal reserve, goals of the money supply, etc. That's not accurate, that's not how it works. The reason we create more money is two-fold.
(1) There are more people now. Not creating money disproportionately benefits the people who were alive before you. If you print no new money, the amount of wealth you have doubles as a proportion of the population when the population doubles. As economic activity increases and becomes more efficient you can do even more with that money. This pressure creates wealth inequality over time -- this is in part what the pilgrims sought to escape as they fled the old world of kings/queens/fiefs/lords.
(2) A predictable rate of inflation incentivizes the allocation of capital to productive endeavors. If your money just became more valuable over time, why on earth would you risk it by investing in something when you can just sit back, chill and be rich? That's why Bitcoin is a god-awful currency. Nobody wants to spend it because they think it will "mewn soon."
The federal reserve doesn't print money, the treasury does. They didn't create money to offset Chinese loans, they sold treasuries (debt obligations) to China, which in turn yielded money. You know what, I won't do as good a job as this article will explaining it to you [1], entitled "Understanding How the Federal Reserve Creates Money."
That all said none of this matters to you, a savvy investor with assets, because you shouldn't hold money. It's not intended to be held, it's meant to be circulated. Go buy things with it, that's what it's for. It can't depreciate in your hands if you've bought something with it. Salaries track inflation, housing tracks inflation, debts don't, so your principal goes down in real-world dollars over time. If you live paycheck-to-paycheck you're totally unaffected.
I'm starting to think the solution to Bitcoin is forcing everyone to attend civics and economics classes.
Replacing an oppressive apparatus that is relying on proof of military/police power to establish trust in banking with some form of an algorithm that is relying on proof of work/energy may be energy saving at the end. Just compare how much police/military has to be maintained and related resources spent to the naked energy for mining/transactions.
Both of those will remain. Even if we fully adopted Bitcoin there's no world in which we tell the army and the police to go home and thank them for their service. They do other things. It's not particularly effective to tell ISIS "you can't hurt me -- I've got Bitcoins!" You can't double-spend this energy budget.
It’s a big question to what extent the wars are/aren’t an extension of economics. My understanding it’s a direct relationship. ISIS got their money from selling oil or from sponsors selling oil for dollars or printing dollars. Police is another matter. But as much as crime has to do with cash money or centralized capitalism it may become moot when fiat money and related misuse potential is abolished.
A decentralized (except for China), un-regulated payment system currently being used primarily to break the law with the purchase of illicit narcotics, goods and services is going to prevent the funding of terrorism how exactly? My understanding is these groups are using it already. Here's a writeup on how North Korea is actively using Bitcoin to circumvent fiat sanctions [1] from a pro-crypto news source. Here's one on how Mexican cartels use it [2]. If anything this means we'll need a bigger army. How is abuse going to be abolished through a system literally designed to prevent any form of controls?
> Replacing an oppressive apparatus that is relying on proof of military/police power to establish trust in banking with some form of an algorithm that is relying on proof of work/energy may be energy saving at the end.
Bitcoin, 0.1% of all electricity: 7 tps
THE ENTIRE REST OF CIVILISATION, 99.9% of all electricity: a whole lot more than 6993 tps.
The best comparison is with the energy used for gold mining which far exceeds bitcoin energy costs. If you look at the giant trucks used in gold mines, you will are the energy savings.
one day someone will tell bitcoiners that (a) gold isn't the basis of the economy any more, and hasn't been for quite a while (b) yes, gold mining is also an ecological disaster that should be stopped
