Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

Bitcoin. A gambling game only a capitalist scumbag would play. Tim May was 
wrong. Btc IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a dead planet.
The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much electricity as Denmark. In 
18 months, it will use as much as the entire United States.
https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/
Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[juan]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 12:05:26 -0800
g2s  wrote:

>  The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much
> electricity as Denmark. 


and you know that, how, exactly? 

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Steven Schear]

The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable using up to at least 24 TWh
annually. That said, as the periodic halvings reduce awards the fees, which
are already to high to make it useful for commerce, may soon make it
problematic for investment.

Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin Unlimited
blockchains could be >> efficient yet.

On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s"  wrote:

Bitcoin. A gambling game only a capitalist scumbag would play. Tim May was
wrong. Btc IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a dead planet.

The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much electricity as Denmark.
In 18 months, it will use as much as the entire United States.

https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/

Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Edward Low]

This Denmark-energy rumour comes from this article, if i'm not wrong:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3za/bitcoin-could-consume-as-much-electricity-as-denmark-by-2020

P.D: Leave out 
fights-promotion-BTC-core-segwit-cash-gold-unlimited-bla-bla-bla from 
the list please...



El 08/12/17 a las 01:12, Steven Schear escribió:
The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable using up to at least 24 
TWh annually. That said, as the periodic halvings reduce awards the 
fees, which are already to high to make it useful for commerce, may 
soon make it problematic for investment.


Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin 
Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.


On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s" > wrote:


Bitcoin. A gambling game only a capitalist scumbag would play. Tim
May was wrong. Btc IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a
dead planet.

The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much electricity as
Denmark. In 18 months, it will use as much as the entire United
States.

https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/



Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

I dont see where this is a rumor.
Rr
 Original message From: Edward Low  Date: 
12/7/17  4:16 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: 
Bitcoin... Destroying the planet 

This Denmark-energy rumour comes from this article, if i'm not
  wrong:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3za/bitcoin-could-consume-as-much-electricity-as-denmark-by-2020
P.D: Leave out
  fights-promotion-BTC-core-segwit-cash-gold-unlimited-bla-bla-bla
  from the list please...


El 08/12/17 a las 01:12, Steven Schear
  escribió:



  The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable
using up to at least 24 TWh annually. That said, as the periodic
halvings reduce awards the fees, which are already to high to
make it useful for commerce, may soon make it problematic for
investment.



Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy
  efficient and Bitcoin Unlimited blockchains could be >>
  efficient yet.
  
  

On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s" 
  wrote:

  
Bitcoin. A gambling game only a
capitalist scumbag would play. Tim May was wrong. Btc
IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a dead
planet.
  

  The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much
  electricity as Denmark. In 18 months, it will use as
  much as the entire United States.
  


  
https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/
  


  Rr

  



  



  

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Edward Low]

True, not really rumour but supposition

"Bitcoin COULD consume [...]"



El 08/12/17 a las 01:19, g2s escribió:

I dont see where this is a rumor.

Rr

 Original message 
From: Edward Low 
Date: 12/7/17 4:16 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

This Denmark-energy rumour comes from this article, if i'm not wrong:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3za/bitcoin-could-consume-as-much-electricity-as-denmark-by-2020

P.D: Leave out 
fights-promotion-BTC-core-segwit-cash-gold-unlimited-bla-bla-bla from 
the list please...



El 08/12/17 a las 01:12, Steven Schear escribió:
The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable using up to at least 24 
TWh annually. That said, as the periodic halvings reduce awards the 
fees, which are already to high to make it useful for commerce, may 
soon make it problematic for investment.


Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin 
Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.


On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s" > wrote:


Bitcoin. A gambling game only a capitalist scumbag would play.
Tim May was wrong. Btc IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading
to a dead planet.

The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much electricity
as Denmark. In 18 months, it will use as much as the entire
United States.

https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/



Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

Department of Irony
Libertarians hate fiat money but love the idea of a currency whose value is 
linked to consuming as much energy as a European nation state
https://twitter.com/IronyDept/status/938928573368299521
Rr
 Original message From: g2s  Date: 12/7/17  
4:19 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: Edward Low , 
cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet 
I dont see where this is a rumor.
Rr
 Original message From: Edward Low  Date: 
12/7/17  4:16 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: Re: 
Bitcoin... Destroying the planet 

This Denmark-energy rumour comes from this article, if i'm not
  wrong:

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/aek3za/bitcoin-could-consume-as-much-electricity-as-denmark-by-2020
P.D: Leave out
  fights-promotion-BTC-core-segwit-cash-gold-unlimited-bla-bla-bla
  from the list please...


El 08/12/17 a las 01:12, Steven Schear
  escribió:



  The Bitcoin Core mining can remain profitable
using up to at least 24 TWh annually. That said, as the periodic
halvings reduce awards the fees, which are already to high to
make it useful for commerce, may soon make it problematic for
investment.



Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy
  efficient and Bitcoin Unlimited blockchains could be >>
  efficient yet.
  
  

On Dec 7, 2017 12:05 PM, "g2s" 
  wrote:

  
Bitcoin. A gambling game only a
capitalist scumbag would play. Tim May was wrong. Btc
IS NOT the future. It's a dead end leading to a dead
planet.
  

  The bitcoin computer network currently uses as much
  electricity as Denmark. In 18 months, it will use as
  much as the entire United States.
  


  
https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/
  


  Rr

  



  



  

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[juan]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:19:23 -0800
g2s  wrote:

> I dont see where this is a rumor.


...because estimating how much energy is being used in hashing
is rather easy. 

so posting completely unsourced garbage like rayzer does is
beyond pathetic...

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[juan]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:12:41 -0800
Steven Schear  wrote:


> Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin
> Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.


So Steve you were talking about some sort of "flipping" or
something a while back? How's that going? 

right now bitcoin is at $18000* while bcash is $1300


*stupid bubble of course.

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

The scumbag said
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:19:23 -0800
g2s  wrote:

> I dont see where this is a rumor.


...because estimating how much energy is being used in hashing
is rather easy. 

so posting completely unsourced garbage like rayzer does is
beyond pathetic...


https://grist.org/article/bitcoin-could-cost-us-our-clean-energy-future/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

What is consensus?

[Edward Low]

There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.

As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.

Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?

Thanks

E. Low

-- 
Edward Low
edward...@riseup.net
Libertalia (Madagascar)



0x0EB51C18.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[Steven Schear]

It's going great, actually. Bitcoin Cash uptake is growing dramatically
and, unlike Bitcoin Core, is entirely practical for commerce.

As for the flippening it clearly hasn't happened. While it's price has
appreciated it's not a hockey stick. I'm still hopeful the recent code
changes will, probably after the next price crash of Core, enable it to
close the miner profitably gap.

On Dec 7, 2017 4:42 PM, "juan"  wrote:

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 16:12:41 -0800
Steven Schear  wrote:


> Bitcoin Cash is up to 8 times more energy efficient and Bitcoin
> Unlimited blockchains could be >> efficient yet.


So Steve you were talking about some sort of "flipping" or
something a while back? How's that going?

right now bitcoin is at $18000* while bcash is $1300


*stupid bubble of course.

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

From offlist. I REALLY WISH the server admin would mask source addresses of 
posters.
 Original message From: juan  Date: 12/7/17 
 5:08 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: g2s  Subject: Re: Bitcoin... 
Destroying the planet 
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:58:22 -0800
g2s  wrote:

> 
> The scumbag said


we are still waiting for you to show that you able to calculate
how much energy is used instead of posting click bait garbage 

what's the problem? You don't know basic arithmetic? 


https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/12/bitcoins-insane-energy-consumption-explained/
Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

 Original message From: juan  Date: 12/7/17 
 5:08 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: g2s  Subject: Re: Bitcoin... 
Destroying the planet 
On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 16:58:22 -0800
g2s  wrote:

> 
> The scumbag said


we are still waiting for you to show that you able to calculate Blah 
blah...
From that ars technical link
However, we can make some educated guesses. For starters, we know the 
industry's revenue: Bitcoin miners currently generate 75 bitcoins per hour, 
which, at the current price of around $12,500 per bitcoin, translates to 
$937,500 per hour, or more than $8 billion per year.

Moreover, the industry is highly competitive, and electricity is one of its 
biggest costs. So when the price of bitcoins rises, we can expect miners to 
spend more and more on electricity until electricity costs are roughly on par 
with revenues.

This is the methodology the Digiconomist (link... use it scumbag.) website uses 
to estimate the Bitcoin network's energy consumption. It assumes that the 
industry will spend 60 percent of its revenue on electricity and then 
extrapolates from the current bitcoin price and prevailing electricity prices. 
It finds that the network is consuming energy at an annual rate of 32TWh.

It also assumes that the network takes time to adjust to big price increases 
like we've seen in recent days. This means that, if Bitcoin stays above 
$12,000, we can expect this figure to rise further in the coming weeks."
Rr

Re: What is consensus?

[g2s]

 Original message From: Edward Low  Date: 
12/7/17  5:03 PM  (GMT-08:00) To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org Subject: What is 
consensus? 
There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.

As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.

Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?

Thanks

E. Low

-- 
Edward Low
edward...@riseup.net
Libertalia (Madagascar)

Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of how it 
fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement, the the BLOCK 
in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish anarchist unions who 
were in general avreement on a goal, and a block STOPPED the process until 
whatever issue the blockung party brought up was resolved.

At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the BLOCK, it 
was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to basically mean you 
were voting yourself out of the process unless you withdrew the block...
Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction won in 
spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the largest factions 
were typically scumbag prog-libs.
Rr

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[juan]

On Thu, 07 Dec 2017 18:10:32 -0800
g2s  wrote:


> 
>   we are still waiting for you to show that you able to
> calculate Blah blah... From that ars technical link

> However, we can make some educated guesses. For starters, we know the
> industry's revenue: Bitcoin miners currently generate 75 bitcoins per
> hour, which, at the current price of around $12,500 per bitcoin,
> translates to $937,500 per hour, or more than $8 billion per year.


hey stupid piece of joo shit, you still don't understand the
very basics of what you are supposed to calculate? you keep
copy pasting irrelevant shit? 
 
you are supposed to give an estimate of energy usage. Watts per
hour. Do you even know what that means? 





> 
> Moreover, the industry is highly competitive, and electricity is one
> of its biggest costs. So when the price of bitcoins rises, we can
> expect miners to spend more and more on electricity until electricity
> costs are roughly on par with revenues.
> 
> This is the methodology the Digiconomist (link... use it scumbag.)
> website uses to estimate the Bitcoin network's energy consumption. It
> assumes that the industry will spend 60 percent of its revenue on
> electricity and then extrapolates from the current bitcoin price and
> prevailing electricity prices. It finds that the network is consuming
> energy at an annual rate of 32TWh.
> 
> It also assumes that the network takes time to adjust to big price
> increases like we've seen in recent days. This means that, if Bitcoin
> stays above $12,000, we can expect this figure to rise further in the
> coming weeks." Rr
> 

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[g2s]

Scumbag wrote

> Do you even know what that means? 
Yep. I also know it matters no fucks if you measured it in Joules... scumbag.
Rr

> 
>   we are still waiting for you to show that you able to
> calculate Blah blah... From that ars technical link

> However, we can make some educated guesses. For starters, we know the
> industry's revenue: Bitcoin miners currently generate 75 bitcoins per
> hour, which, at the current price of around $12,500 per bitcoin,
> translates to $937,500 per hour, or more than $8 billion per year.


hey stupid piece of joo shit, you still don't understand the
very basics of what you are supposed to calculate? you keep
copy pasting irrelevant shit? 
 
you are supposed to give an estimate of energy usage. Watts per
hour. Do you even know what that means? 





> 
> Moreover, the industry is highly competitive, and electricity is one
> of its biggest costs. So when the price of bitcoins rises, we can
> expect miners to spend more and more on electricity until electricity
> costs are roughly on par with revenues.
> 
> This is the methodology the Digiconomist (link... use it scumbag.)
> website uses to estimate the Bitcoin network's energy consumption. It
> assumes that the industry will spend 60 percent of its revenue on
> electricity and then extrapolates from the current bitcoin price and
> prevailing electricity prices. It finds that the network is consuming
> energy at an annual rate of 32TWh.
> 
> It also assumes that the network takes time to adjust to big price
> increases like we've seen in recent days. This means that, if Bitcoin
> stays above $12,000, we can expect this figure to rise further in the
> coming weeks." Rr
> 

Re: Bitcoin... Destroying the planet

[juan]

conclusion : trolling piece of shit rayzer doesn't know how to
calculate energy consumption from hashrate and just posts
garbage he reads on the interweb

Re: What is consensus?

[Douglas Lucas]

Hi Edward,

Consensus is agreement by means of votes. It's a hierarchy where those
who win the vote impose on those who lose the vote (although sometimes
the dissenters just exit altogether).

One no-voting method of collaboration is stigmergy:
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2012/12/24/stigmergy-2/

See also:
https://georgiebc.wordpress.com/2017/02/23/a-societal-singularity/

On 12/07/2017 06:19 PM, g2s wrote:
> 
>  Original message 
> From: Edward Low 
> Date: 12/7/17 5:03 PM (GMT-08:00)
> To: cypherpunks@lists.cpunks.org
> Subject: What is consensus?
> 
> There is a question I would like to send to the list and get some feedback.
> 
> As far as I was told, consensus is a way to reach a decision without the
> need of voting, so there is no majority nor minority, no one can impose
> their ways even if they are majority so no lobby and no forcing.
> Clearly, education is needed for that, so everyone understands the need
> of giving up a little bit in order to make it work for the common project.
> 
> Lately I've been seeing consensus described as voting system, with
> majorities and minorities. My english is short, so maybe there is a word
> to describe consensus as a no-voting system to reach a common solution?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> E. Low
> 
> -- 
> Edward Low
> edward...@riseup.net
> Libertalia (Madagascar)
> 
> Consensus implies everyone agrees. Using OccupyWallStreet as example of
> how it fails when there isn't some sort of at least general agreement,
> the the BLOCK in the consensus system they used was based on Spanish
> anarchist unions who were in general avreement on a goal, and a block
> STOPPED the process until whatever issue the blockung party brought up
> was resolved.
> 
> 
> At Occupy there were so many political interests represented that the
> BLOCK, it was felt, was being used to disrupt, and it was modified to
> basically mean you were voting yourself out of the process unless you
> withdrew the block...
> 
> Which turned the process into mob democracy where the largest faction
> won in spite of problems perceived by people blocking, and OFC, the
> largest factions were typically scumbag prog-libs.
> 
> Rr