hfsp

The rules of btc will not change and become a multiple-tier system because of your feelings. Sorry.

I provided evidence (from NY fed) to your burden of proof request.

All one can ask is to have the same rules for everyone. Equal access. No special privileges.No cantillionaires.

If you are a cantiollionaire - good for you.

If you are not a cantiollionaire, then wtf are you defending a clearly corrupt system that further drives inequality and perpetuates cronyism? Is it because you want to be the person distributing freshly printed fiat?

Assuming your well founded intentions are to make the world less inequal via the money printer, the money printer has been proven to do the exact opposite.

If you want to properly critique btc, you can argue that there is a one time cantillon effect until hyperbitcoinization. Then you can get into the discussion of what happens to the people who don't have any. You could discuss UBI or other social systems.

>Those aren't fuels - those are chemicals found in crude oil.

Methane is an organic fuel. Coal is an organic fuel.

>You don't burn crude oil in power plants.

Diesel is how small island nations in the Carribean or Hawaii get their reliable electricity. Diesel is a heavier form of crude. In case you don't believe me here is a primer: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/diesel-fuel/.

>That there are starving people in africa is not a valid argument for Americans to over eat, likewise the lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.

>lack of cheap reliable alternatives to fossil fuels in the third world is not a reason for the developed world to also keep burning fossil fuels.

What exactly are you saying? You are depriving the poorest billion people of electricity because of your virtue signaling?? This is inhumane.

"Over eat" - who are you to judge what form of electricity use is moral?

This is insanity on multiple levels.

This is a smug take.

Who do you think gets the benefit of the freshly printed fiat?

In the central bank cantiollionaire system, there are three classes of citizens:

1) jamie dimons, warren buffets and the like who get access to practically 0 cost lending rates 2) the ~60% of citizens with assets (e.g. stonks, real estate) that get pumped along with the money printer 3) everyone else

What do you think happens to "third class" citizens?

The rules are NOT the same for everyone under the central banking system.

The rules ARE the same for EVERYONE with BTC.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff...

Btc is what it it is because it is NOT centralized.

pos = centralization risk.

pos = shitcoin.

If you want to read in depth: https://voskuil.org/cryptoeconomics/cryptoeconomics.pdf.

This is either an uninformed or misleading take.

It isn't necessarily "Africa" or "Americas".

The heuristic is "is my local fiat shitcoin stealing my purchasing power".

Counter to your claim and easily provable with a basic search Nigeria is one of, if not the leading in BTC adoption %.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/news/nigeria-is-the-second-l...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1194735/bitcoin-online-s...

BCH is trending to 0 in BTC. How does this solve Venezuelans or Lebanese store of value problem?

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/BCHBTC/

Let's follow the money.

Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:

"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."

Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

There's two underlying issues:

1) Failure of winterization across both wind and organic power sources 2) Unreliable nature of wind

>Texas supposedly has about 30 GW of wind power capacity >In reality solar and wind must be coupled with storage in order to act as reliable baseload generation.

The problem is there is no grid scale storage, and neither ERCOT nor any other organization I know of can will solar nor wind into production.

Completely agree with your assessment.

ERCOT leadership failed.

TX power grid failed.

People died.

TheIntercept has fallen mightily from breaking the story on Snowden to filling political hit pieces.

Pretty telling their own founder was ousted last year.

Agreed on the ideological slants.

People were put in harms way.

>Less polluting Are you familiar with the rare earth metal mines, solar, or wind plants in China?

>It should be prioritized over the private gains of fossil fuel executives/employees/lobbyists. Stop playing politics with my power system.

You are playing politics. I just want to not freeze to death during the snowstorm, or fry up in the hot summer.

Unreliable electricity sources such as wind and solar are a recipe for paying more for electricity, and losing power when it is most needed.

Have sympathy for yourself.

Please note organic fuels: -provide parts for your computer, smart phone, router -power your home, and office so you can use above -keep you cool in the summer and warm in the winter -transport you on the ground and in the air from A to B -power the agricultural sector so you don't have to grow all your own food

Unlike you, there are a billion people+ on Earth who do not have access to cheap, and reliable energy.

This is peak developed world virtue signaling.

There is a lot of conflation in btc threads between store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account.

You are referring to unit of account.

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/bitcoin-as-a-store-of-...

>Bitcoin network only processes a small fraction of the number of transactions per day that Visa processes

Btc is not replacing visa. Btc is replacing central banks. The appropriate comparison here is what is the energy cost of the banking infrastructure of the incumbent system.

>Environmental concerns aside I am concerned that you are using electricity to power your computer, access the internet, and comment on HN. Are you the arbiter of "moral" energy use? Am I? Slippery slope, and an anti-human one at that.

>Energy prices are notoriously volatile; hence Bitcoin's value will also be volatile.

This is not how it works. There is an argument to be made for risk of on-grid miners sudden increase of electricity prices in the case of a power shortage. Miners don't like this type of risk, so they choose to locate at places with abundant supplies and stables prices of electricity. Miners sign long-term electricity agreements. Risk to off grid miners is another level removed from on grid miners.

>will eventually be abandoned entirely. According to how you feel? All signs point otherwise.

>the technical objections to Bitcoin outweigh the economic objections You are free to make your own fork, BIP, or new "crypto" and compete. Good luck. By the way, there are 7999 "crypto" coins competing and losing so far.

>Or maybe it comes from people who have read an Econo101 textbook and who have spent a lot of time trying to explain a crowd of Bitcoin enthusiasts why their reasoning is wrong

The market decides. Not an economics "expert", nor fitting btc to an arbitrary theoretical definition of money.

>It seems that tech has enabled a grand new theory about money to be implemented.

Are you aware of the Austrian school of economics?

>There’s a bizarre religiousity and post hoc rationalizations for some of the weirdest decisions in its design, and mistaking speculative mania and nominal price for success

This is a feature, not a bug. It is very difficult to change the protocol. We have a 100% certain monetary policy.

I agree with you that perception of what btc is and isn't changes with time.

If you have a proposal, you are free to create and propose a BIP, or fork off.

Good luck.

The market has spoken: https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/NANOBTC/.

"The design of eCNY borrows only a few minor technical elements from Bitcoin and does not use the so-called blockchain technology, a ledgerlike system, which most cryptocurrencies rely on, officials from the People’s Bank of China have said."

Enjoy your religion.

"Clean" energy is a fallacy, and a greens marketing ploy.

Solar, wind, batteries all have environmental costs, as do all other sources of energy & energy storage.

Unfortunately, hit pieces like the OP's share from the Guardian do not objectively compare benefits vs costs & risks.

Thanks for sharing this info. One critical detail is missing. Context.

Take the US case. 23.2 GW "capacity". Over what period of time? A second? A minute? An hour? A day? A month? A year?

Let's take a case study of California, the "leader" in energy storage in the US. California removes reliable and cheap organic power plants, and is surprised to find at periods of peak demand when energy is needed most (heat waves, cold spells) the system falls apart. [By the way, removing reliable access to electricity is how you expose the most vulnerable segments of the population to danger of life and safety.]

"The state’s grid operator blamed the blackouts on “a perfect storm” of extreme heat and unusually high demand, as well as a drought that’s limiting hydropower resources and a decline in electricity imports from neighboring states also struggling to keep air conditioners humming. Compounding the problem, 1 gigawatt of wind unexpectedly went offline Saturday, along with a gas plant."....

"“In some cases, we have built a reliability plan that isn’t completely realistic.”"....

"The dearth of battery storage has long been a key barrier to transitioning to a green grid. Though the price of batteries has fallen significantly, they’re still not in widespread use. California only had enough to tackle about 1% of Monday’s peak load forecast, "

California storage cannot handle 1% of battery needs. Please keep in mind when reviewing assumptions, claims, and statements about solar & wind grid.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-17/californi...

How do you get to we should base our system on the failed Germany model? Do you want to pay ~triple the avg US price for electricity? What do you think happens to the not small segment of the population struggling to make ends meet?

The Germans invented a new term in the context of this issue - energy poverty.

Do you want to pay more for your electricity, produce more emissions so we can virtue signal that our electric production is solar & wind?

This approach means that you are depriving a billion people on Earth of reliable access to electricity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_a9RP0J7PA

>How do you get from there to 'and therefore we should give up on making more'? I do not claim this. I am stating facts in the face of unreliable energy dogma. Let the free market compete.

There is no grid scale storage in the US.

>even when backed by battery storage We have seconds of grid battery storage in the US.

>Solar and wind are the cheapest electrical generation technologies What do you think happens 90% of the time when solar & wind are not available in sufficient capacity? People shut off their lights, laundry machine, and heater/air conditioning?

There are enormous environmental and human rare earth mining costs to assumedly "clean" and "green" electric cars, and solar panels.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20150402-the-worst-place-....

Sorry to challenge your fossil fuels bad take.

The grid, and thus electric cars run on fossil fuel. Contrary to your belief, expensive unereliables such as solar, and wind cannot run the grid by definition. Solar and wind are great, when they are up.

Case in point: Germany. Shut down carbon free, emission free, reliable, cheap, safe nuclear. Subsidize, install solar, wind. Find out solar & wind are unreliable. Fire up new coal power plants. Increase emissions due to constant ramp up and ramp down of carbon plants (similar to stop and go traffic on the highway). Increase cost.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/10/is-germany-making-too-m...

Choose your fighter wisely:

[ ] ELECTRIC CAR GOOD

[ ] ELECTRICITY BAD

You are asking "why btc".

You have read Lyn's post on QE - great!

Here's how I view it, and I believe Saylor as well: cash loses double digit % purchasing power annually for the things you want to buy and hold.

You can hold on to your melting pile of cash, or you can deploy that capital elsewhere. Art, wine, stonks, negative/0 yielding bonds, real estate, crypto kitties, or an asset that has been appreciating at a clip of 200%/yr.

Question is not why btc, but why would you put yourself at a disadvantage by holding fiat reserves.

VCs do not believe in btc.

If you hate VCs, buy btc.

Apple P/E is around 30, not 3.

You would do well to take the time to understand why MSTR did what they did.

Hint: https://www.lynalden.com/money-printing/.