It needs to be banned. The environment is orders of magnitude more important than the dollar.
I really fail to understand the fetish of the crypto crowd with the word fiat and whatever they think it means. I get it, people just want to gamble and want to be ultra rich without doing anything, I am sure there are ways of doing that (gambling) without wasting a ton of energy.
Non-fiat currency is physically tied to the creation of real-world value, like say mining gold which has thousands of real-world applications. Traditional fiat currencies are fundamentally designed to be a proxy for real world value. In a well designed system it’s most of its creation is tied to debt issues to, say a gold mine or an oil well or solar farm. Cryptocurrency is - in its utter insanity - fundamentally tied to the destruction of physical value. That is, burning electricity while creating nothing useful. So: more fiat than fiat. Another huge step removed from the creation of real physical valuables.
Traditional currencies are far more efficient and a basic necessity for the economy to function at all.
Cryptocurrency is fundamentally unsuited to become a real currency by its very design. Every one I’ve seen so far has been made by people who seem to lack even the most basic understanding of what the main origin of currency is. (Hint: it’s not metal coins..)
The US went off the gold standard in 1971. It's all just bullshit paper now. I'm not sure why you're talking about something that doesn't even exist today.
I'd love it if "traditional fiat" currencies existed as you describe, but they don't.
The energy consumption is not the result of anything, it is a fundamental design element. [1] To reach a meaningful consensus, you have to give all participating users equal or at least similar voting power. But Bitcoin does not want a central database of users which opens the door for Sybil attacks - you can just invent an essentially unlimited number of users out of thin air and have them vote the way you want. The solution to this problem in case of Bitcoin is to tie votes to computing resources for calculating hashes. While you can invent users out of thin, you can not invent computing power out of thin air. This gives each user voting power in proportion to the amount of money they are willing to invest in computing resources. Not really equal voting power for all users but close enough in practice. If miners would not burn enormous amounts of energy, anyone could come along and influence or alter the transaction history or just mine empty blocks and with that block all transactions.
[1] For Bitcoin and similar proof of work systems, there are alternatives.
With crypto it's at least harder than that.
Cryptocurrencies are math. Governments cannot control math, as much as authoritarians wish they could.
>That people in developed countries don't want governments to control money to claw it back from fraudsters is the second biggest fantasy.
The assumption that most people in developed countries want government to "control money" is delusional at best. There are certainly many people in developed countries who want the government to control money, control speech, control political discourse and control everything else - but there are just as many who oppose all of that.
And there's the misconception. Trading government money for cryptocurrency is subject to regulation. Do you think you can hack the President's communication and send it to Putin because it's math? Do you think you can set the interest rate on a loan to 500% because it's math?
> The assumption that most people in developed countries want government to "control money" is delusional at best.
How strange then that every single developed democracy has implemented it. I must have just imagined the entire field of tort law and people clamoring for relief from the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Venezuela
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinflation_in_Zimbabwe
> https://www.usinflationcalculator.com
You are trying to retcon the reason why (e.g.) Bitcoin was created in the first place:
> Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non- reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
However even with the volatility, it's way more stable than the Venezuelan currency. Crypto is widely used in Venezuela.
The peer to peer network enabled them to circumvent the banking system, which is why BTC was created, according to the original paper.