Hacker News Reader

Comment by rvz | Hacker News Reader

Of course everyone knows that Bitcoin and other Proof-of-Work coins are the main culprits in incinerating the planet. So the last resort is to 'attempt' to ban them.

However:

> and threatening the future of crypto

No it does not.

What does the banning of Bitcoin mining have to do with other coins that do not use mining at all? it is more like the uncertain and unsustainable future of Bitcoin and Proof-of-Work coins rather than all cryptocurrencies.

Again, an article who's editors think that all cryptocurrencies have the same characteristics as Bitcoin. It's like thinking that all cars have the same characteristics as petrol cars and having a 'ban' on petrol cars means is a 'threat' to the future of cars in general.

Downvoters: Care to explain yourselves as to how every single cryptocurrency shares the same environmental disadvantages as Bitcoin and other Proof-of-Work coins?

View on HN

I don't think the crypto market as a whole is resilient enough to withstand a Bitcoin cliff drop.

Once the money starts leaving Bitcoin, how likely is it that retail investors are going to consider other crypto, based on concepts they don't understand?

How much fiat money has been actually used to buy bitcoin? It doesn't seem to have made a dent or caused major uproar despite repeatedly crashing. Which imho means that people buying btc are more shrewd than it is usually assumed

> Once the money starts leaving Bitcoin, how likely is it that retail investors are going to consider other crypto, based on concepts they don't understand?

If they don't understand, then should they have ever invested at all? Just a stray though of mine, but usually "don't invest in what you don't understand" is a pretty good principle to live by.

I get the impression that most of the "investors" are somewhat smart gamblers with excess money. Bitcoin is hyped everywhere, from DailyWire to the online chess influencers.

It seems that we are in the stage where your taxi driver tells you to buy.

I would be pretty shocked if the majority of people who own bitcoin understand it in any real sense.

Let's try to rephrase this and see if it still makes sense or is relevant. "I would be pretty shocked if the majority of people who own a computer understand it in any real sense"

Or maybe substitute computer for something else, like internet.

I'm unsure what you're trying to say, I was responding to a point about investors understanding the medium they're investing in, not users of something understanding what they are using.

I was trying to say that the investor doesn't need to understand the technology that they invest in, which is pretty common. Your post hinged on this point and I wanted to offer a contrasting view.

My post didn't, the one above me did. They said if you don't understand it you shouldn't invest. I just said that the majority of people with bitcoin don't understand it. And that's not what you were saying, Noone is investing in computers when they own them. They buy the computer to use. Unlike people investing in bitcoin.

If that was the case Bitcoins would sell for 2 cents, charitably.

To me, the energy waste is secondary to the massive amount of intellectual resources being wasted on this.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com