Just to put this into perspective:

The average value of a Bitcoin transaction is currently $119 and requires energy worth roughly $100 (the world average price is $0.14 per kWh).


More perspective?

The global energy consumption in 2017 was 22.3 terawatt hours.

If we moved all financial transactions over to Bitcoin, we'd require over 1000 terawatt hours... each day(!) for Bitcoin transactions alone(!).

That doesn't even factor in that Bitcoin's energy consumption will be exponential to the amount of transactions.

Still believe that Bitcoin is the future of financial transactions?

I'm sorry, but no, that's laughable.

Bitcoin and the blockchain are amazing technologies, but they don't scale for what we are currently using them for.

Yes, there are enough clueless people in the market so that you can still make a quick buck (with a bit of luck anyway), but it's just one big bubble waiting to burst - by design.

Does that mean all crypto currencies suck? No, we're working on better alternatives.

@fribbledom or maybe you are just wrong. But you are free to do as you please. Many have tried. All have failed. Adding another one will do no harm.

@hanakookie @fribbledom

All have failed? I guess I have to wonder how you define failure.


@john @fribbledom bitcoin is $700B. Pretty much means all that have tried has failed.

@hanakookie @fribbledom

How? How does that correlate at all? The Euro represents a lot of value, too. That doesn't mean Linux has failed.

@hanakookie @fribbledom

My point being success and failure should be regarded relative to your goals.

I'm certainly not going to transact with other people via BTC. That would be stupid. You could instead use something that's fast and cheap, or you could use something that maintains privacy. Or you could use BTS and just throw money away for no reason.

So if you're looking for payment processing, BTC is a failure.

IMO distributed ledgers are mostly useful for their contracts. BTC has none.

@hanakookie @fribbledom

If what you want is a store of value, BTC does a better job than many others. If that's what you want, then by all means.

Personally I'd want my store of wealth to be better tied to my expenses and/or risks, for example an index of stablecoins or something like that. But maybe that doesn't align with your goals or portfolio or whatever.

@john @fribbledom ive been through this before. It doesn’t matter what you want or me. The market decides. And the market has decided it’s bitcoin. The rest is just tech. There have been many that just can’t accept that. And the basket of coins isn’t the right approach. Embrace scarcity.

@hanakookie @fribbledom

"The rest is just tech." - exactly, which is why I brought up the analogy to Linux. A lot of these systems are primarily computation platforms, and their success & failure should be judged as such.

"the market has decided it’s bitcoin" - How do you figure? BTC's price is high, but plenty are doing OK enough. This is not zero-sum.

"basket of coins" - I said basket of stablecoins. I'm playing with derivatives that are connected to legacy assets including fiat.

@john @fribbledom a lot of these are computation. But they all rely on their monetary policy first and foremost. You think ppl demand smart contracts or stablecoins over the SOV and NgU tech. They don’t. Here is a wise thing I learned in the 90’s. Fish in the pond where ppl are catching fish. As for now as basket of stablecoins doesn’t exist. Nor does it do any better than just having USD.


I know that some people do care about that, because a number (not all) of those projects are chugging along just fine. You don't have to be the #1 store of wealth in order to be a successful compute platform.

If your goal is to make money, being on the long side of stablecoins is a terrible strategy. I'd hope that's not what people are there for. But my opinion on that isn't super relevant as I'm not actually using crypto to store wealth or make money.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Bitcoin Mastodon

Bitcoin Maston Instance