Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Comment by lmm | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> waiting <1 second for a visa transaction does not protect the merchant from potential massive losses, because of credit card chargeback fraud which is very real, exploited every day, and can be conducted up to 60 days after the purchase.

And yet it remains economically viable for merchants to operate waiting <1 second for payment, because the trust-based visa system and the broader legal system have countermeasures against chargeback fraud. With bitcoin that's impossible by design; merchants don't accept bitcoin in <1 second and never will, because there is no way to deal with the fraud that would lead to.

> And people enjoy making money, and so choose to pay the electricity to mine bitcoins. Same thing. People pay for things they enjoy.

Not the same thing. Bitcoin isn't decorative, it's a means to an end - paying for things. And there are much cheaper ways to pay for things, unless you're a criminal.

> I estimate that if Bitcoin's market capitalization reaches $1 trillion, then miners will still not account for more than 0.74% of the energy consumed by the world ($1.25 billion per TWh), which is more energy-efficient than, say, Canada (whose economy produces $450 million per TWh.) See http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/

That calculation is using an artificially low energy price and an artificially high profit margin for "miner"s, and it's completely disregarding how transaction fees are intended to displace mining fees as a source of mining profits. But even using that number, world GDP is $80t; at a conservative P/E of 20 that makes the world economy's market cap around $1.6q. So bitcoin would be 0.06% of the world's market cap, but consuming 0.74% of the world's energy.

> Yes and this is a physical exchange of cash/commodities. Bitcoin/cryptocurrencies make irreversible transactions possible digitally and have no other equivalent in the digital world.

There are irreversible digital settlement systems (those that currently exist are even slower than bitcoin, but there's no reason they have to be - it's just that at the scale of the financial entities that can make use of such systems, waiting a couple of days for settlement is a non-issue), and we could easily make more if there were demand for it. Credit card chargebacks are a design decision, not a fundamental limitation.

"the broader legal system have countermeasures against chargeback fraud"

The same legal system will be used to sue thieves, regardless if they chargeback a credit card, or revert a 0-confirmation bitcoin transaction. Do you live in a fantasy world where judges tolerate theft of bitcoins?

"merchants don't accept bitcoin in <1 second and never will, because there is no way to deal with the fraud that would lead to."

You seem to have never heard of Gemini (second biggest US exchange) who does accept 0-confirmation transactions meeting certain criteria. Or greenaddress.it. Or services like gap600.com.

"Not the same thing. Bitcoin isn't decorative"

You are right, Bitcoin is not a useless decorative thing. Bitcoin is a revolutionary distributed trustless financial network. Again, it is your 3rd message, and you still failed to explain why it is ok to spend energy on useless (on a technical level) decorative Christmas lights, but not on Bitcoin.

"And there are much cheaper ways to pay for things"

No. Again I can send $5000 or $50 million across the world and pay a flat tx fee of $2. No system other than cryptocurrencies accomplishes this.

"That calculation is using an artificially low energy price"

Why do you complain? The low energy price of $0.01/kWh benefits your argument, not mine, as it allows miner to spend even more electricity in this model.

"So bitcoin would be 0.06% of the world's market cap, but consuming 0.74% of the world's energy"

You are missing the point. It is not market caps that need to be compared, but the GDP increase caused by Bitcoin that needs to be compared with its energy use. The market cap of Bitcoin is in itself irrelevant. The point http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ is making is that if Bitcoin's market cap is that high, then it probably will have helped increase the world's GDP by at least 0.74%, therefore it will be worthwhile to spend 0.74% of the energy on it.

"There are irreversible digital settlement systems"

False. You cannot name them because they do not exist. Only cryptocurrencies accomplish this.

> you still failed to explain why it is ok to spend energy on useless (on a technical level) decorative Christmas lights, but not on Bitcoin.

Christmas lights produce value and there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value (because the value is a subjective notion of prettiness, we can't say that other forms of decoration are acceptable substitutes). Whereas bitcoin does have a cheaper substitute (because bitcoin is functional, so any other system that does the same thing is just as good).

> The point http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-mining-is-not-wasteful/ is making is that if Bitcoin's market cap is that high, then it probably will have helped increase the world's GDP by at least 0.74%

There is no logical basis for that inference - I suspect that article is just trying to trick people by making them compare a large-sounding number ($1 trillion) with a small-sounding number (0.74%), because people don't have a good intuition for how big the world's GDP is. Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production.

> False. You cannot name them because they do not exist. Only cryptocurrencies accomplish this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real-time_gross_settlement

You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote. I take it you agree with it.

"there isn't a less wasteful way to provide the same value"

Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc.

"Compare market cap with market cap or compare production with production"

Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing.

RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer.

> Yes there are many ways: migrate from incandescent to LED, run LEDs at lower PWM duty cycle, reduce number of lights, etc.

All of which affect the subjective beauty of them.

> Comparing production to production is exactly what the article is doing.

It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest.

> RTGS transactions are reversible. Eg. when fraud is detected, banks simply agree to perform a reverse transfer.

Agreeing to perform a reverse transfer will be possible in any system you could meaningfully call a currency. It's certainly possible with bitcoin.

I said "You haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote." You still haven't, but instead are nitpicking on whether LEDs affect the subjective beauty of Xmas lights (which I disagree with but whatever.) This further shows your argumentation in this thread is baseless and going nowhere.

"It's not - comparing market cap (a total value measure) to GDP (a per-year measure) is dishonest"

Yes it is. It says "it would have probably directly or indirectly increased the world's GDP by at least 0.74%" This is a percentage that relatively compares Bitcoin's production (0.74%) to the world production (100%). Bitcoin's market cap is mentioned in passing, but not part of the core argument.

RTGS: of course the 2 banks part of a transaction can agree to any transaction. What I meant is the central bank or other authority (not part of the initial transaction) can reverse it at will. Most RTGS systems are operated by central banks. If a fraudulent transfer from bank A to B is made, then of course the central bank would step in and reverse it. As I said, again, irreversible digital transactions outside of cryptocurrencies don't exist.

> instead are nitpicking on whether LEDs affect the subjective beauty of Xmas lights (which I disagree with but whatever.) This further shows your argumentation in this thread is baseless and going nowhere.

Hey man, christmas lights and LEDs are your example, not mine; I'm just answering your questions.

> This is a percentage that relatively compares Bitcoin's production (0.74%) to the world production (100%).

No, because it doesn't give any reasoning to connect up Bitcoin production with that 0.74% figure. The only number it gives for Bitcoin is the $1T market cap number, and fundamentally it's completely implausible for something with a $1T market cap to be responsible for 0.74% of world productivity. As I said a few posts back, a $1T market cap in a mature industry corresponds to being responsible for about 0.06% of world productivity (and a $1T market cap in a growing industry corresponds to less productivity than that, as the market cap is including the growth potential).

> What I meant is the central bank or other authority (not part of the initial transaction) can reverse it at will. Most RTGS systems are operated by central banks. If a fraudulent transfer from bank A to B is made, then of course the central bank would step in and reverse it. As I said, again, irreversible digital transactions outside of cryptocurrencies don't exist.

Cryptocurrency transactions can be reversed by those operating the cryptocurrency - look at the Ethereum DAO fork.

"Hey man, christmas lights and LEDs are your example, not mine; I'm just answering your questions."

You are not answering. You still (3rd time I point this out) haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442878 where I explain the utility of Bitcoin, legal protections, and 0-confirmation transactions. Should I take your silence as tacit acknowlegement?

"No, because it doesn't give any reasoning to connect up Bitcoin production with that 0.74% figure."

It doesn't give the reasoning, but I also don't think your estimate is correct, especially your choice of P/E 20, which is not conservative at all. Remember the world's market cap is comprised of very average companies, including companies that are so terrible they are not worth taking public: for example a small corner store, which I am sure you will agree should not be valued at a P/E of 20. In fact we can estimate a more accurate world P/E by looking at the global market cap of listed companies: $60T (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD) If 1/4th of the world GDP is produced by public/listed companies and 3/4th by private/unlisted ones, then the "world's market cap" is $240T, which means the world's P/E is 3. Bitcoin being valued at $1T would be 0.42% of a $240T world market cap, so it would be reasonable and very average for it to use 0.74% of the world's energy. In fact after doing this math I am surprised how close these 2 figures are. This means Bitcoin would be even more efficient compared to other industries (eg. aluminum smelting) that use disproportionately even larger amounts of energy compared to their contribution to the world's economy/GDP.

"Cryptocurrency transactions can be reversed by those operating the cryptocurrency - look at the Ethereum DAO fork."

Replace "cryptocurrency" with "Bitcoin" in my sentence. Bitcoin has a 8+ year history of never reversing transactions despite many massive thefts. So, as I said, Bitcoin's irreversible property has no equivalent in other financial systems. And you were wrong that RTGS systems provide irreversibility.

> You are not answering. You still (3rd time I point this out) haven't replied to the majority of what I wrote in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442878 where I explain the utility of Bitcoin, legal protections, and 0-confirmation transactions. Should I take your silence as tacit acknowlegement?

You're link goes to some random comment in an unrelated thread, so I've no idea what you're talking about. The legal system is great when you can identify a thief, but that's difficult enough for in-person theft; it's virtually impossible when operating pseudonymously over the Internet. As for 0-confirmation transactions, the bottom line that no amount of sophistry will get away from is that 0% of the shops I've been to in the real world that take bitcoin allow payment in seconds, whereas 100% of the visa-accepting ones do.

> for example a small corner store, which I am sure you will agree should not be valued at a P/E of 20.

Huh? It absolutely should be; that's exactly what a P/E of 20 being normal for mature businesses means.

> Bitcoin has a 8+ year history of never reversing transactions despite many massive thefts. So, as I said, Bitcoin's irreversible property has no equivalent in other financial systems. And you were wrong that RTGS systems provide irreversibility.

I'm sure there'll be examples of RTGS systems that have gone just as long with no reversed transactions, especially if you measure by transaction volume rather than clock time.

More importantly there's no fundamental difference between Bitcoin and Ethereum that makes it impossible for the same thing to happen; indeed the 0.8 (I think?) hard fork demonstrates that the level of coordination that would be necessary to reverse a transaction already exists. The only difference from conventional RTGS is policy; Bitcoin's operators doesn't reverse fraud, whereas it sounds like some RTGS operators do. I'm not sure why any non-fraudulent business would prefer the former.

The correct link is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14442877 Prosecuting a thief who orders online a package to be shipped is as hard/easy if he used Bitcoin or a fraudulent CC. I would like to remind you you argued there were zero legal countermeasures for Bitcoin fraud, and this is clearly untrue.

0-conf txs are a thing, see the link. Although uncommon, they are becoming a bit more used as people demand faster transactions. But the reality is in most cases waiting 10-60 min doesn't matter (eg. wouldn't prevent a package ordered online from arriving in 2 days.)

As to the P/E, I have demonstrated to you why the average P/E of the average company is probably closer to 3 than 20. On average, it's companies that are better than average that are taken public. So it makes sense that private companies have a worse P/E.

"I'm sure there'll be examples of RTGS systems that have gone just as long with no reversed transactions"

Still doesn't mean RTGS provide irreversibility, as you incorrectly claimed. I am repeating myself again, but Bitcoin's irreversibility is one of the biggest differentiator it has over non-cryptocurrencies. Seeing you refuse to acknowledge this is silly.

"I'm not sure why any non-fraudulent business would prefer the former."

I already told you: literally 1 in 2 persons involved in a transaction (the recipient) would prefer irreversibility. Is it so hard for you to understand why a legitimate non-fraudulent recipient would prefer the sender not have the ability to take the money back?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com