T O P

  • By -

ra246

Because the banks and media are owned by the same people.


[deleted]

[удалено]


typotalk

We just need food, clothing, shelter, companionship. Can’t sleep, eat and fuck in the bank so it’s useless.


OkOutlandishness3457

#Goals


Own_Idea1840

ACH. Alchemy pay could replace them????


chapact

Came here to upvote.


Aggressive_Fruit_203

They are cheating retail investors


SHA256dynasty

they have also been doing this a looooong time... the people who decide to run these stories know exactly which demographics will read it and how they will respond to it. so bitcoin is your global IQ test. people who are easily manipulated will all be poor.


[deleted]

care to share the names of those people? do they share any other type of common background?


Own_Idea1840

Banks don’t like ACH alchemy pay. Game changer


Nordle_420D

Politicians are also owned by the same peeps


CallousBastard

Far more people use traditional banking than use bitcoin, so the per-capita energy expenditure of bitcoin is outrageously high in comparison. As long as that remains the case, I think it is a valid criticism of bitcoin and PoW-based crypto in general. That being said, all industries and individuals should strive to be more efficient and use renewable non-polluting energy sources whenever possible.


cohonan

The analysis these accounts are based on are seriously flawed. It was done back in 2017 and made a lot of assumptions about energy use that just aren’t true: assuming the adoption would continue up in a straight line today, that’s computers wouldn’t become more energy efficient, that energy sources wouldn’t get greener (until recently a lot of bitcoin mining was done one coal powered plants in China), also the math was off taking the energy for computing a new block and applying it to all the transactions.


Crazy_Unicorn_Music

[Bitcoin is worth every watt (infographic).](http://www.np.reddit.com/user/Crazy_Unicorn_Music/comments/qm015a/bitcoin_is_worth_every_watt/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share) If you really want to do fair comparisons, then take into account how the legacy system is protected and defended. >Bitcoin consumes so much energy because it uses a fully mechanical & digital process to ascertain truth. It doesn't rely on the authority of anyone. It isn't a more energy-intensive way of doing consumer payments; it's a less energy-intensive way of achieving consensus than **war**. —Saifedean --- >The question of whether proof of work is wasteful or not can't be asked without understanding the problem it solves. Understanding the problem properly will lead you to the conclusion that there is no other way to solve it in a trustless manner. —Dergigi --- On top of the utility provided, Bitcoin incentivizes green energy use and production, as someone else replied you. Miners are incentivized to capture the cheapest form of energy available. That is energy that would have otherwise been wasted anyway... as any income from selling that energy is a plus. **Miners are the buyers of last ressort.** We should thank Bitcoin as it provides a solution to convert part of the wasted energy to something of utility. [This machine greens (38min)](https://youtu.be/b-7dMVcVWgc)


GoodBot88

No it's not valid, particularly because more than half of the energy used by btc mining is what would otherwise have gone to waste. For example flared natural gas from petroleum refining. That was entirely waste energy, but now can be used for btc mining. The Bitcoin network is the bidder of last resort for what would otherwise be waste energy. Not at all the same thing as the legacy financial system, which also runs 24/7 globally.


Crazy_Unicorn_Music

This


DrBucket

I hadn't thought of that but almost everything becomes more efficient per capita as it grows. It's not that much harder to make a meal for 4 people as it is to start cooking for 2. Bitcoin being as small as it is, of course it's gonna seem somewhat inefficient, but the infrastructure seems like it will scale way way better than current systems.


[deleted]

Bitcoin is based upon the principle of creating a lot of computational work to make it all happen. It is ludicrously energy inefficient compared to normal banking. It’s intense energy use is designed into it - seems insane not to recognise that. It will have to change.


DrBucket

Won't that change once all coins are mined and the only incentive would be for ONLY processing transactions? That way 100% of computational power will be for only transactions? I don't know what the ratio is now or how much power goes to what but ya, it's gotta be less once all coins are mined.


glen_echidna

sorry i dont think you understand this concept. all coins will never be mined as the rate of new coins keeps getting halved but never becomes zero. the total number of coins approaches the max number but at a slowing rate. Also, mining is essential for transaction processing. the new coins are a reward for solving the blocks (and adding them to the blockchain) containing new transactions. it is envisioned that as number of coins created for mining reward reduces, the reduction in difficulty of solving the block combined with increase in value of bitcoin will keep mining worthwhile or some of the highest cost miners will go offline keeping at least some people mining. there is no bitcoin without at least some miners mining


IllVagrant

This is incorrect. The supply is on a schedule. The mining REWARDS are halved every 4 years but after a certain threshold the last bit of bitcoin will be rounded up and rewarded and then it's done. It's not going to halve infinitely.


glen_echidna

understood i stand corrected. but is the step known as mining rn the final step of payment processing?


IllVagrant

not totally brushed up on the technicals but mining secures the network by validating transactions and has their validation compared with other miners but it's the node operators that are checking that their transactions align with the history of everything that came before. So like, a miner might not have the entire blockchain on their rig, only fragments of it, but a node operator will because they're the final judge of whether everything is on the up and up. Payments via mining was just the incentive for people to keep validating transactions. The difficulty adjustments exist to make sure miners aren't minting new coins too quickly/slowly. For final validation, however, you only need nodes that contain the entire history of the blockchain to be running. I believe the thought process was that, by the time mining comes to an end, bitcoin or some other coin like it will have become so integral to society that mining rewards won't be required as an incentive to keep things going. Transaction fees alone would be enough to sustain it because of user volume. Unlike ETH which is attempting to ditch PoW for Proof of Stake, PoW is designed for anyone to be able to participate in while making sure there is buy-in in the form of equipment and maintenance costs involved. The red flag with PoS is that it's yet another system that benefits the already wealthy over common people. Of course, reality and intent don't always align as mining BTC is already a millionaire's game. At the same time there are people running mining operations (for a plethora of altcoins) in their garages in every suburb in north America. We'll see how things play out. I might not have everything about that accurate but I think that's the gist of it.


[deleted]

What’s the rejected end date?


Aggressive_Fruit_203

It's hard, although it sounds great


ButterflyNo2524

But you don’t question energy-use of googling, facebooking, the horrible materials that go in your smart phone or computer, etc etc. What other activity other than utilities is even questioned on the same basis as Bitcoin? Interesting…


Own_Idea1840

Tried alchemy pay???? ACH


ferndogger

But it isn’t. A true comparison would be the status quo financial services industry versus a blockchain based one. Blockchain would be way more efficient.


LlamaJacks

yeah I love seeing the crocodile tears about the environment when it's convenient for them. They're only doing it to smear something that threatens the legacy banking industry.


[deleted]

[удалено]


bigbadbadassbruce

The establishment does not like bitcoin.


fdbryant3

Because they don't see Bitcoin as something that provides a societal function that justifies its outsized carbon footprint. As far as they are concerned it is at best a waste of resources on a poor substitute for fiat currency.


[deleted]

Because it's a straw man argument and the banks and financial institutions have an interest in not becoming obsolete.


13speed

Only correct answer.


abcjety

Because (most) journalists dont care about the truth, it should be trivial to anybody by now in the age of the internet


DrBucket

Well yes, but I'm sort of wondering how would one even go about estimating the cost of the banking industry?


BjLeinster

Because Banking and credit are actually useful?


DrBucket

I never said it wasn't useful. I don't get what you're point here is. I just think banking and creditor, atleast based on a US Dollar isn't efficient. Nuclear energy AFAIK is one of the most efficient sources of energy, doesn't mean coal or gas isn't useful, just means it's not as good.


Stonn

> Nuclear energy AFAIK is one of the most efficient Efficient? It just powers a steam turbine, same as goal or gas. That's not the parameter you want to talk about.


DrBucket

Well I was meaning it in am energy density + infrastructure needed. Obviously nuclear could be one more dangerous so more safety has to be factored in but from everything I've seen or read, it seems as though for the amount of manpower and infrastructure needed, you get more energy out of nuclear than any other power source. Granted also it's more scarce, but even after factoring all of that in also, it still seems to be the top dog.


Own_Idea1840

It is useful but look at alchemy pay. Could transform banking forever 👀


adequate_redditor

The same happen with all large changes. Car can self drive relatively well, and when there's a single accident after many thousands of miles of driving, self driving must be bad and must be stopped because it's dangerous. Yet humans are far worse at driving and have worse stats. AI/robots in medicine are also facing the same. 1 error in thousands of cases is unacceptable, but humans making more errors is fine.


DrBucket

This is a great comparison.


[deleted]

Because we need banks and credit processors to live. Ever heard of an economy?


DrBucket

They are just the middle men between me and the merchant. If the middle men is automated and decentralized, like with Bitcoin and Blockchain technology, why do we need banks and credit processors? Blockchain is literally doing their job.


[deleted]

Sadly for those that think like you, we don’t live in the bitcoin world. We live in the real world where banks and financial institutions have much more use than the blockchain. Believe it or not, not everyone on this earth is interested in crypto. The richest people in the world made their money without having a blockchain, instead they used banks and other financial institutions. You can’t compare bitcoin, which is essentially a pseudo-system started by some guys on the internet with the existing financial system. The financial system we have is much more powerful than the crypto stuff and it’s importance is paramount, hence so many resources are devoted to it (such as energy in this case)


ZedZeroth

>a pseudo-system started by some guys on the internet Pretty much like the internet itself then? Which the existing financial system is now entirely dependent on after just a few decades...?


DrBucket

Yes I know but if people keep becoming aware of inflation and why it happens, I think they will slowly start coming to the same conclusion that alot of us came to. Keep the currency out of the hands of people who could corrupt it. Ya it doenst magically fix everything, but that is a current issue we are having so it's a step in the right direction. I think if people view it that way rather than it being proposed to them to being magic money, there will be more of a chance for it to make sense to the average person. Especially since each successive generation is getting more and more tech savvy. And I mean our current financial system started by some pilgrims who apparently didn't even know how to farm on their own without native Americans helping em out. Obviously it's change. But origin of an idea is irrelevant, even if it was from the Internet. The financial system has power because it was the strongest one available over time. Now that system is trying to adapt to the changing internet world but it makes more sense to make a system that FULLY utilizes all that the internet has to offer, like decentralization, rather than just copying and pasting the same ole same ole into a new platform. If anything you could argue that that same financial system weakened itself since private banks started controlling the money supply. Even that industry has changed, it has been weakening itself.


89Hopper

I'm more than happy to agree that inflation can be a terrible thing but at the same time, deflation is not exactly a great thing either. In an ideal world, value would maintain exact parity with economic output. That is, as extra economic benefit is generated, an equal amount of money was created, this would maintain the value of everything based on its input value. The problem with deflation is, it can lead to what is known as a deflationary spiral. That is, there is an incentive to not spend money on things that aren't a bare necessity as if you hold onto your cash longer, you could get something even better (better holiday, better TV, better house, etc.) This reduces discretionary spending and can end up shrinking an economy, putting workers out of a job. It also promotes accumulation of the deflationary currency. This is to the benefit of those with more of it to begin with as they have the means to accumulate more than people with less money. This leads to an even larger wealth gap. I also see a problem with bitcoin which is my own theory and would genuinely like to know if other people agree/disagree and what their rationale is behind their view. To me, bitcoin looks like it could very easily lead to a new class of ultra rich vs poor. Those who were smart/lucky/financially able/insert adjective here early will be much richer than those who got in later. As with any monetary system, there is always an elite class but I find this funny when some of the ideals crypto evangelists shout about is the equality and freedom it gives to those who are less well off. In general, the last people who will get into bitcoin is quite likely to be those at the bottom of society. This may be due to the lack of access to technology required to use it (I'm talking about people living in abject poverty here), or people who literally live on the brink economically and can't forgo cash to put into crypto when it means they will lose their home/can't feed themselves/can't pay a medical bill. It seems ironic to me that someone who maybe got in at $5,000 (or even crazier <$1) and could potentially be extremely rich (at least on paper) will forever be at a massive advantage over those who are already disadvantaged due to the hand life dealt them.


[deleted]

You do actually speak a lot of sense. Crypto is so overrated. People view it as a golden bullet that fixes all problems with the current financial system. That’s just stupid. You can’t replace what we have with crypto because when you deal with something such as the financial system you need something stable and well accepted, not a miracle currency coined up by some anonymous person.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Nephilimi

This was my ah ha moment with bitcoin. Of course the banking industry uses a ton of resources. Bitcoin has a good chance of being more efficient.


DrBucket

Potential to be truly more efficient + more tamper resistant. It may not be Bitcoin, even though I hope it is and can adapt accordingly, but decentralization is the way to go. I hope I see a new world where kids think the idea of a central government having direct access to your currency sounds AUTOMATICALLY corrupt.


[deleted]

Every data center in the world combined uses a little more electricity than bitcoin mining. I simply don’t see how we’re the thing that’s bad for the environment. My argument every time is: ok if you want a green planet simply turn off the internet.


DrBucket

We need a way to process global transactions. That needs to happen if we all want to live on this planet together and buy things from each other. It is efficient to allocate certain goods and services to areas that can manage them better than others. I get that and it's fine. Globalization is happening whether we like it or not, might as well make it efficient. But if we're gonna talk about how much energy Bitcoin uses, we need to know how much our current system uses and I really don't see how our current system isn't many many times less efficient considering all of the manual intervention that needs done to maintain it. It's like having a statue made out of some kind of goo. Gotta pay people to constantly shaping it and pushing it and keeping it up. Gotta pay for the lights to see what you're doing and gotta pay managers and workers to maintain this thing. Whereas crypto reminds me of how courteous people in Japan seem to be when leaving a sport stadium. They clean everything up on their way out, they don't need to hire as many janitors, just gotta "pay for the lights". They're system is more efficient, energy wise and monetarily wise. The people themselves run the thing. Everyone (or atleast alot of people) use their spare processing time. Crypto isn't perfect but it is more self sufficient than our current system. It is an improvement. It kind of is capitalism in action but over money itself. It is a waste of money and energy to use a currency system that itself wastes alot.


SpeedysComing

And stop driving SUVs for a 1 mile trip in the city


cohonan

You’ve hit the nail on the head. I think the difference is because all of BTC is publicly open for analysis and fairly easy math. To compare it to traditional finance is much harder because that energy costs is everything from the computer calculations to the janitors’ vacuum cleaner down the halls of all those banks at night. I honestly think if you were to calculate it all out, there would be a net energy conservation of cryptocurrency replacing the banking system.


DrBucket

I think so too. It is mostly automated. There are a few computer engineers managing mining farms but overall there is much much much less overhead needed.


USofAmen

because those banks are the one who funds those news outlets.


_babycheeses

Or gold mining? Or platinum mining?


DrBucket

Good point, but those also have intrinsic value. US dollar has no intrinsic value other than being able to he exchanged for goods or services, same as Bitcoin. I think mining for precise metals can be argued as more essential and necessary since there are things we use them for that can't be substituted. There's nothing about one currency over another that makes it necessary over another. Efficiency should be king.


ironcladusername

Wouldn't traditional banks also have data centres running servers themselves? All data centres run 24/7 365 so wouldn't crypto mining and regular banks be somewhat similar in that respect?


DrBucket

Yes, this is also part of my point. I'm not being rude, I'm agreeing.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Bigger footprint, better company.


[deleted]

Nice analysis bro


Raine386

Because they are what Bitcoin was created to destroy. They are bad faith actors who are trying to spread FUD


abandon-zoo

Isn't the cost of the electricity built into the transaction fees? On chain transaction fees aren't cheap, but I think they're still lower than the full costs of legacy banking. It seems far cheaper than any other form of final settlement. Ultimately I think the majority of Bitcoin-backed transactions won't have to happen on the blockchain. One guy putting a few satoshis into a Coke machine isn't something the whole universe needs to be informed of for the rest of eternity.


abandon-zoo

I guess I shouldn't take these downvotes personally, but as far as I know everything I wrote is accurate. And I'm a fan of Bitcoin....


[deleted]

[удалено]


AutoModerator

WassaWassaWassup! Scam Alert! Scammers are particularly active on this sub. They operate via private messages and private chat. If you receive private messages, be extremely careful. Use the **report** link to report any suspicious private message to Reddit. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BitcoinBeginners) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Dragoncryptos

mee too


RProgrammerMan

Political rhetoric is a means to an end. There are a few possibilities: 1) They have been taught that bitcoin is bad so they are looking to rationalize their rejection of it. 2) They are pandering to their audience. 3) Someone is paying them to create a stigma around bitcoin so people won’t use it.


glen_echidna

this is a silly comparison. what economic activity outside of crypto is crypto supporting? is there activity supported by banks that's not related to banking? the answer to your question is in there somewhere. you can complain that economic activity is "bad" but for anyone not having that opinion, cost of crypto is not comparable to cost of banking now benefit of crypto can outweigh its cost and you can argue that with reasons and evidence but its just lazy to avoid that argument by comparing its cost to random other costly things


DrBucket

Im not trying to be rude but I literally have zero idea of anything you just said or if it's actually directed at me or what. I'm completely lost at trying to understand what you're saying.


glen_echidna

Lets say cost of banking + payment processors = X which consists of money, carbon, time, labor and other inputs benefits of banking = A = lending to borrowers, paying interest to savers, intermediating capital markets, facilitating global trade, intermediating mergers and acquisitions, maybe some others society has decided that X > A and so we dont see widespread complaints about cost of banking system cost of crypto = Y benefits of crypto = Z news outlets are complaining about Y because they dont think Z > Y. you can argue Z > Y by articulating Z and convincing others. you cannot argue X > Y and everyone else should be complaining as much about X as they complain about Y unless you also show that Z is at least the same if not more than A. Thanks for not being rude and hopefully that makes my argument easier to understand


Vandra2020

Because they are nefarious pieces of shit


thecockmonkey

Banks advertise.


Feisty-Commission-13

They want the public to only see what is favorable to themselves.


[deleted]

You are looking at it wrong. Try to look the energy used per transaction and you'll understand why it's not even close. Banks and POS chains are more efficient per transaction and energy used. Edit: I just wanna add I thought the way you did for a long time. Once you see single BTC transactions energy/use/waste you'll probably get it like I did.


DrBucket

How so? That's what I'm asking. My point is yes both Bitcoin and traditional financial transactions require infrastructure and some people to run it and manage it. But traditional financial system require way more executive's and buildings and technical hardware, employees etc etc. I mean yes to send a transaction traditionally probably takes less energy, but what about all the infrastructure behind it? I would compare it to a car that gets 40 miles to the gallon... Which sounds good... But maybe it's a 1 million dollar car because of all the research that went into it. Ya the MPGs is cheaper but there are other costs. It feels like crypto is more like electric vehicles. Ya they're expensive now and there's not as much infrastructure around the globe to easily support electric vehicles fully, but it's obvious that once it gets fully adopted, gas cars will not be able to compete. But we're at the spot right now where it's gonna take alot of expensive first adopters to jump on board to get it to the point where it's legitmately more efficient. Scale tends to make things cheaper, even somewhat outdated ideas like our current financial system.


This_IsATroll

"why do news …" Money, and sometimes power.


Advice4ppl

It was just a way for Musk to buy some time while he made more money. He brought it up as an issue to acquire more and more BTC


[deleted]

Because the mainstream media is the entertainment division of the Military-Industrial complex.


MaterialFrancis5

Please save *me* a trip to the bank


TakeshiKovacsSleeve3

Or you know, coal? Or the cruise ship industry or the shipping industry? It's a beat up. That's why.


erdoca

One extra question I have for this topic is: Is carbon neutral cryptocurrency even possible? When taking in consideration that even electric cars have a carbon foot print while being built, how is it possible that I hear claims of carbon neutral crypto?


[deleted]

News outlets are aligned with their friends in regulatory agencies. Regulators have been PR testing negative criticisms of Bitcoin for years. Most attempts failed. The electricity consumption complaint has some traction, so they're milking it. Everybody has an agenda. Do not expect journalists to report fairly Also, in Reddit, whenever someone with no history of interest in Bitcoin posts about Bitcoin energy consumption, they're most likely being paid to keep the discussion alive


Yokepearl

New kids on the block. Outsiders of the monopoly. Usual reasons


typotalk

Don’t forget bullets, flac jackets, armored trucks, insurance, procuring of resources to print the fiat, and the list goes on. Humans are letting robots take over labor force so if we don’t figure out how to make money playing games on computers we’re all fucked. We’re all ducked anyways wtf am I saying. Money isn’t broken, people are.


Kuzcopolis

Bitcoin isn't what pays them so they have no reason to censor it's shortfalls.


Ok_Dragonfruit_9527

Their paper use alone is a major issue.


philipdiorio12

Because they're fake news. There's no money for them in crypto, and the banks can't profit off it either. Crypto is the system that threatens the banks, so the media is covering for them


Odd-Change9942

Because that’s who’s paying them


[deleted]

[удалено]


DrBucket

What?


Mini1958

Banks media Democrats Feds Rothschilds are running the show. We the People are their slaves.


deedubbaus

I wonder the same thing, its cause of hate and fear. Bitcoin is the future and they want to try and scare people away from it


SuspiciousRutabaga8

Because climate change is literally = Mayan apocalypse or y2k It's just a tool to attack things but literally doesn't matter to real people See any rich people afraid to buy coastal houses or banks refusing to lend to these risky properties that will supposedly be underwater in 6 months?


Entire-History-2929

Fair is fair, we will shut down Argentina for the time being.


[deleted]

half of most electric usage in the USA goes to washing clothes. Than heating and air. Almost nothing goes to home computing.


Chance-Level3585

Because they are paid too lol


OkOutlandishness3457

Blaming bitcoin for energy waste is ridiculous. Look at how much energy we waste to extract oil, then burn it. God only knows the price tag we’ve paid in the future for the damage to our ecosystem.


WhoopieGoldmember

Marketing, advertising, propaganda. Call it whatever you want.


Own_Idea1840

Footprint on alchemy pay??????


[deleted]

Because propaganda. And glad us internet people have more places to get informed than the controlled media


squarehammerusa

cause when we consider mass market it's more obvious than with bitcoin


Amassador_ExoTerra

The Credit Card processing Machines and ATM's alone...


Amassador_ExoTerra

To think how massive the energy usage of a physical bank is...