Hacker News Reader

> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.

It's so easy to assert and so comforting to believe, but is it true?

Just in this thread alone there are two articles already, one from the Financial Times, one from ARS Technica, which say the opposite. And personally, it's hard for me to believe that people who are keen on maximizing profits in pretty much its purest form--cryptocurrencies are literally burning resources for money, directly--would not take the opportunity to take whatever energy source is available in order to convert the generated energy into money in their bank account or crypto wallet.

At astronomically low efficiency, too. Because in proof of work, all calculations per block are entirely wasted... until the very last one where you managed to hit the right hash.

> Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are

Primarily based in a country which is also the world's largest consumer of coal

> Its security model has yet to be proven on any network worth discussing. Those claiming otherwise are selling snake oil.

If there are specific problems worth raising about PoS, please share them, I'm sure plenty of folk here would love to learn what they are.

My take is that it's probably an ESG thing, perhaps some funds voiced their concerns about the potential for Tesla stock to hurt their ESG ratings. There was never any question of whether holding and transacting in Bitcoin would eventually start appearing on the same page as Greta Thunberg, the only question was when. It seems Musk just drastically accelerated this outcome.

> All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.

Tesla's engineering team received experienced in supporting Bitcoin for payments and treasury management. Tesla received quite a bit of PR for accepting Bitcoin. Selling Bitcoin also net Tesla a substantial ($101 million) profit. It is said Tesla does not have a marketing department, but it is marketing itself just fine. You don't give Musk enough credit, he knows what he's doing.

There are two main things incentivising me against using it as a form of payment.

1) Purchases with Bitcoin are a capital gains tax event. Or they might be? I can't be arsed figuring that out. It's hard to blame Bitcoin for this one.

2) There are not enough things that I am conveniently able to purchase with bitcoin for me to go full bitcoin (e.g. accepting salary payments in bitcoin)... This is a network effect thing. Every alternate payment system has to solve this problem.

1 is a massive barrier to solving 2. Regulatory environment needs to be fixed first.

Why is #1 a concern? If your BTC appreciated vs USD while you held it, then you'll owe tax on it. If it declined, then you can claim a loss to offset other gains. It's just paperwork. I would imagine that any BTC wallet services worth their salt will be able to spit out an automatic 1099 at the end of the year that can be imported into your tax software.

For #2, I can't see companies offering to pay employees in BTC - it opens them up to too much legal risk.

1) Cause it's effort... as opposed to one single capital gains event when I sell - I would have zillions to colate for all my purchases at different price points. It's not the fact of having to pay tax... it's the effort of tracking what tax I have to pay.

2) Mebbe - no idea either way.

> 1) Purchases with Bitcoin are a capital gains tax event. Or they might be? I can't be arsed figuring that out. It's hard to blame Bitcoin for this one.

Yep. There’s no way I would ever use crypto currency as a day to day currency.

Privacy-friendly coins may be the way out of the current regulatory mess.

> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.

It doesn't matter if the rest of the country isn't also on hydro. Currently mining just takes the green energy capacity away from non-mining use, which never went away.

> When Bitcoin does work, it's in situations in which those making the payment have few other options. They're blocked from taking credit card payments or interacting with the banking system. It's easy to dismiss those use cases, but they're real.

Bitcoin works remarkably well for shady activities. Ransomware payments, human trafficking, blackmarket dealing, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other illegal activities are worth mentioning.

>Bitcoin works remarkably well for shady activities. Ransomware payments, human trafficking, blackmarket dealing, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other illegal activities are worth mentioning.

Not really. Leaving a permanant transaction history of one's crimes in the hands of multiple 3rd parties potentially for thousands of years doesn't work out too well if anyone is interested in prosecuting said crimes in the future.

> All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.

Unless it was a pump and dump scheme. Granted, he says they won't be selling it until later, but they can just say they've decided it'll never be viable later, then sell it. This tracks with your statement that mining transactions using more sustainable energy doesn't make sense.

Since crypto isn't regulated by the SEC, it seems like leveraging Tesla for a pump and dumb to generate capital is _not illegal_.

Crypto that is considered securities (by meeting the Howey test) is regulated by the SEC. Crypto that is treated as a commodity is regulated by the CFTC.

As far as I know all crypto is considered securities by the IRS.

The IRS treats crypto as property in general, not a currency. That’s why there are capital gains or losses with each transaction.

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...