@masek @tkinias That sounded so ridiculous I did a quick websearch to check the numbers and it checks out. I found values between 800 and 1800 kwh.

How the f*** is this s*** still around??? 🤯

@meltingpenguins @goblin @masek @[email protected] graphics cards actually aren't often used anymore, due to them being unprofitable. They use dedicated mining rigs designed just to mine BTC.

The main reason they still use the wasteful "Proof of Work" (PoW) mechanism is because Bitcoin 'maximalists' don't like change, and refuse to adapt. It's gotten pretty cultish.

Every other major cryptocurrency uses a mechanism called "Proof of Stake" (PoS) which uses ~99.98% less power. BTC miners refuse to switch.

@boltx But look which 'market' is now gobbling up graphicchips...

Basically all these things were never about doing anything good. It was just always to make rich people richer at the cost of everyone and everything else.

You wanna have a save, stable currency? Unravel capitalism. And you can't do that if you are buying into something that is ultimately making rich people richer. /shrug

@meltingpenguins I don't think these things were "never about doing anything good." If you look at what the vision behind Bitcoin or newer, less outdated chains like Ethereum is, it's certainly quite a good aspiration.

Take power away from corporations and governments to negatively affect the things that affect people.

Of course, there is a lot that now disrespects these original goals, namely PoW defenders, scammers, VC-funded vaporware, etc, but many groups still defend the original vision.

@meltingpenguins I'm not trying to 'sell you' on anything. I'm just trying to point out that blockchains were created with the primary purpose of taking power away from centralized entities that created problems for the public.

Quite literally the very first block in the Bitcoin blockchain includes a headline from a newspaper, regarding publicly-funded bank bailouts after deliberate, risky fractional reserve actions taken by banks.

They weren't 'never about doing anything good' as you claim.

@boltx My train of though is: 'this was created for that, but that requires, at bottom line, giving more power to those you want to take power away from, albeit in a kinda round-about way'.

the intentions might have been good, but the infrastructure they require could never have worked out for the cause.

That's why I said you need to unravel capitalism first. And then I don't think blockchain based stuff would be 'needed' at all.

@boltx Actually let me rephrase this, cause I think I'm sounding far more aggressive than intended.

Blockchain currency was an idea meant to solve a problem that stems from capitalism. But due to how the blockchain and all functions it only benefits capitalism.

So the idea might have been good, but it isn't what's needed to solve the issue, regardless what model it might be using.

@meltingpenguins That's definitely an interesting take! Could you elaborate on how exactly blockchains give more power to those we want to take power from?

Because at least from what I've seen, the infrastructure underpinning it is already more globally distributed and cryptographically secure than any financial institution I've seen, the access it provides to under-served communities is massive, and the mechanisms (like PoS + Slashing) remove wealthy actors' power if they do something bad.

@boltx you need real money and/or hardware to get more crypto, regardless of model. which means those that already have money can get it easier. and due to the nature of it, no one really doublechecks how many wallets are connected etc. cue a lot of laundering, scams etc.

also, here's the most important part:
It's all digital without a papertrail. any form of currency that completely fails the moment you don't have good internet, or internet at all is not a great thing at all. (1/2)

@boltx take paypal: paypal leaves a papertrail. meaning that, yes, if the internet itself should fail there's still recoverable documents that tell you there's X amount of money in your possession.

crypto does not have that.

Thus, no, with financial stuff you can't just 'give control to everyone' without unraveling capitalism first.

And as said, once that happens these models would be obsolute immediately.

It is what it is.

@meltingpenguins True on the point that those with money can get crypto easier. Crypto doesn't change the existing distribution of capital.

On your next point though, I'd say it's the opposite. Due to the nature of blockchains, more people keep track of what goes on than in traditional finance. Fraud is exposed faster, and more thoroughly, and even independent investigators with no privileged access, such as one by the pseudonym of ZachXBT, have been contacted by the U.S. government for help.

@meltingpenguins The rate of money laundering and general fraudulent activity in crypto is, on average, quite low, usually under 1%, compared to around 5% in traditional finance. (See: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money-laundering/overview.html & https://www.chainalysis.com/blog/2022-crypto-crime-report-preview-cryptocurrency-money-laundering/)

On top of that, since crypto is more traceable, it's likely the % for traditional finance is even higher.

@meltingpenguins I'm willing to bet PayPal doesn't keep tens of thousands of backups scattered globally with every single transaction archived in them.

On your point regarding internet, it's definitely fair to say that crypto not working without internet is a flaw. However, there are some people working on offline rails, which, while still in their infancy, are looking promising, and could provide similar trust assumptions to cash when transferring money.