Search results

Fair point, although that's effectively my second option! I suppose in the immediate short-term we may need to use less energy, but only to the extent that it is sustainable. More generally the only aim should be sustainability.

Why?

Should 'we' be aiming to simply 'consume' less energy, or use energy more effectively with less environmental impact?

There is a reason we dropped off the gold standard, and I'm not sure it was necessarily a sound reason, at least how it has transpired. In the US (and other jurisdictions) you can now hold BTC via an ETF. Ostensibly, that's the reason for the recent price increase, both people buying expecting...

I ma not sure what's so funny about that? Anyway, you're not going to change your views and ideas, certainly not based on anything I say! Only time will tell if its a worthless tulip Ponzi scam, or something that does have genuine value and merit...

My post was a bit facetious, but not really. You say BTC isn't back by anything, but it is, it's backed by known and non corruptable math. You might think that's one and the same, but many people see the merit and value in that

???

BTC is a medium of exchange only, with a known and finite supply. A large amount of energy is used, its what protects/secures the network. Other payment networks also consume large amounts of energy. Arguably there is a cost effective incentive to mine BTC using currently wasted energy. The...

Get Bitcoin (or don't if it's not your thing).

Seems too good to be true IMO, certainly the wider market gains, arguably BTC not so much if the increasingly likelihood of an/some ETF comes to pass. If not, and this is the start of a broad crypto wide bull market, I suspect Binance will be letting off a huge sigh of relief...

Your framing those aspects as 'cons', whereas lots of other people see them as 'pros'. There is also more to it than that. I also question the inherently worthless aspect. Whilst on the one hand a bitcoin is inherently worthless, on the other it isn't, although its not an easy argument to make...

The consensus is bitcoin was created out of a cypherpunk movement, not libertarian, although I do appreciate the crossover. The State/Government creator is a possibility, but I don't see evidence for that.

This is the balance sheet, simple code. There is no underlying asset back it up. There is no company or board, similarly no one owns the bitcoin company or brand etc. Arguably people who run nodes are responsible for the performance, requiring consensus for proposed changes. Anyone can run a...

Got any tips?

Andrew Bailey referenced that type of thinking in his speech yesterday, saying something along the lines of 'we don't need trains, apparently horses are as good'. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/speech/2023/july/new-prospects-for-money-speech-by-andrew-bailey.pdf Anyway, its...

Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, currently talking about CBDC on sky news.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rocket-boost-for-uk-economy-as-financial-services-and-markets-bill-receives-royal-assent

Is that what were supposed to read to inform us about the UK Government having dropped all things crypto?

Really? Lots of regulation and associated tax might make them see differently?

But, if/when the CBDCs arrive why will they be an existing token, or blockchain. Won't it make sense for a new ledger to be developed, with a number (50?) of trusted validators?