bitcoinmonger

Like rats off a sinking ship.

It's safer for everyone if government controls the currency we use.

It's security issues like this that are the reason why we should not allow anyone to have complete control of their money.

Another nail in Bitcoin's coffin.

I don't understand why Bitcoin has been designed to burn fossil fuels when it should just as easily be able to be run using green energy.

Until this is changed I can't see cryptocurrencies having a future, despite their utility.

Why is Bitcoin still allowed to exist? It's clear from the conversations over recent weeks that it's a waste of energy.

Are we just going to ignore the environmental impact of Bitcoin?

This will not be good for the environment.

I don't think we want to live in a society where individuals have complete control over their money, which is was cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin enable.

How do you know that I won't steal funds from your account?

Do you simply trust that I won't, and that your bank trusts me not to do so?

I suppose the question is, what's stopping me? Trust or security?

What would happen if you walked in to their server room and tried to update their database to reverse a payment?

Agreed. The money supply should be flexible to help alleviate the effects of inevitable financial crashes.

This of course devalues the savings of the average person when this happens, but it's the only way to recover from mistakes like the mortgage bubble.

This will be good for anyone interested in using modern cryptocurrencies, whilst also allowing governments to control access to accounts and adjust the money supply if necessary.

It's a win-win for everyone.

Also the energy required to secure the ledger will be dramatically reduced. Proof of work can be replaced by physical security, which is more energy efficient.

Anyone wanting to rewrite the ledger would need more power than the government has in protecting it.

How much more difficult would it be to extend this further so that the entire Bitcoin network goes offline?

This sounds promising for any groups looking to shut down the system and stop the energy usage.

Bitcoin has no value over the long term.

There are no controls on who is allowed to send and receive money, and funds cannot be confiscated by government if necessary.

A system that permits individuals complete custody over money is not something that should be allowed to exist in a modern society. There is too much room for criminal activity.

The current financial system works better and should not be circumvented.

Seemed inevitable.

I first found out about Bitcoin in 2017, but didn't have time to fully understand the technology, so I brushed it off as a curiosity and moved on. I heard about it again in November at the start of the price increase, but upon further analysis decided not to invest due to the fossil fuels required to secure the network (I extend my thanks to Stephen Diehl for his thorough and nuanced introspection of the technology).

I feel sorry for those who have lost money at this time, but I am thankful to have had the foresight to avoid this inevitable price crash.

It's good to see a country finally take a firm stance against global warming.

I believe this will further impact the environment.

An increase in the demand for SSDs will result in an increase in the production of hard drives. The construction of these hard drives requires energy, and this energy comes from the burning of fossil fuels.

Just another nail in Bitcoin's coffin.

Bitcoin doesn't run on coal.

I think Bitcoin is genuinely exciting. I know it's not exactly "under-the-radar", but a lot of the discussion on HN is unfortunately only related to the price. It's a bit of a shame, but I can understand it's hard to see through the noise sometimes.

The fact that there isn't more discussion around the cryptography, networking, etc. suggests to me that many are still unfamiliar with the power of the underlying technology.

I have a solution to the energy consumption problem.

Instead of banning Bitcoin completely, just make it illegal for individuals to run cryptocurrency nodes or perform mining operations. In it's place, each government can then run their own cluster of nodes for the general public to use as a cryptocurrency.

This way, the general population has access to cryptocurrency, but government can monitor and control all of the transactions that take place to ensure that no illegal activity arises. In addition, governments could also control the issuance of private and public keys, which means that funds can be easily confiscated in the event of fraudulent behaviour.

Of course, the main issue with this setup is that the nodes will be centralized, and therefore are at a greater risk of physical attack. This can be solved through physical force, which will consume energy in itself, but will be far more efficient than using a globally distributed proof-of-work mechanism for protecting the transaction history of the currency.

Furthermore, in the event that a nation state scale attack takes place to try and undermine the transaction history of the government-run nodes, the force required to protect these ledgers can be scaled up to match it (e.g. war). However, I believe this to be an unlikely scenario, and so the overall cost involved with protecting the cryptocurrency would be less than what is currently consumed by proof-of-work.

In short; instead of using electrical energy to protect the integrity of the currency, we use physical force instead (which will be far more energy-efficient).

To me, this quite clearly solves the energy consumption, without having to perform an outright ban on the technology. This way, everyone benefits.

How does this affect the environment?