Was this an attempt at......humor?

For clarity on the El Salvador situation

1) Bitcoin is Legal Tender...and while the vote passed there is a 90 day grace period to allow for infurstrurture to be built to support it.
2) The US dollar is also still legal tender. So, they just have two now instead of one.
3) While all merchants must accept Bitcoin as payment (in 90 days) they will always have the option to immediately convert the Bitcoin into US dollars...so the volatility issue of using bitcoin gets removed from the equation for the merchants. They can of course also hold onto the Bitcoin.
4) Since it's legal tender...no capitol gains taxes on Bitcoin gains...zero. So, Winklevii Twins...you know were to go.
It's really not that complicated, and it appears they have thought this trough. That does not mean there won't be complications...I'm assuming there will be many. This is a test case...so to speak. I personally think in the long term this will really help the people of El Salvador.

Thanks...it's a new frontier, normally Gold is strong in a down trend.....I was wondering if BC being touted as same as gold, perhaps it would fare better in a down turn..It seems not.

You're going to base that assumption off of a 1 of 1 example? A highly unusal one at that. I mean...if the whole market colapses then everything goes down...at that point you're probably looking at bonds again. History has shown that just hanging on works out well in the end. As they say...the best performing investors are the ones that have been dead for decades.

Why are all the crypto’s selling off right now except bitcoin? It’s a little weird. They’ve
pretty much been moving together for a while.

https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/CRYPTOCAP-BTC.D/

Dominance has been out of wack lately. It’s correcting.

The alts depend on btc. It’s why eth can’t flip btc. If it did the whole market would flip out and there’s no model for that.

Crypto markets do not behave like stocks. You have to unlearn some of the stock stuff

I was curious about all this FUD surrounding energy usage and CO2 emissions. From what I found the total Green house gas production (converting Methane, Nitrous Oxide, etc into CO2 Equivalents) is 51.8 Gigatons / year. Which is 51,8000,000,000 Tons each year.

They seem to attribute BTC mining to the production of 22,900,000 tons of CO2/year.

That turns out to be a paltry 0.0442% of global CO2 emissions. On the other hand, the production of sneakers is estimated to produce 1.2% of the global CO2 production, or 621,000,000 tons of CO2/year, or 27x more than BTC.

I realize that everyone needs sneakers, but holy crap.

It's not like people sat down, looked in an analytical manner at all the things that generate pollution in the world, started at the top of the list and that happened to be crypto-mining. The vast majority of people aren't this analytical.
People with an axe to grind against crypto are using this as the main argument to get the discussion in the mainstream, then well intentioned people who care about the environment get onboard.
Maybe the reason for the people to have an axe to grind is not entirely unrelated with pollution either, but it's probably that they have something against it, and on top of it this thing they don't like does pollute to an extent.

I read a very interesting book about how such subjects take the center stage in public discussions:
pasted_image (resized).png

It's not about the energy use. It's only about people thinking Bitcoin has no use.

Bitcoin is literally the best thing on this planet to advance green energy technologies. Nothing else is a close second. (Period).

I went "green" when I purchased my last car (photo below). Just to help the planet's ecology, of course.
2013-mustang-Boss-302-green (resized).jpg
(I keep testing to see if people in this thread have a sense of humor.)

Yes, I think a lot of the people that get onboard with the discussion to for that reason (running shoes have use, return on pollution not so bad - crypto has no use, infinite pollution/usage ratio).
But I still think the ones pushing the discussion on the radar in the first place do so not mainly because of the pollution issue.
Coming back to Elon, if he's not just being a troll, I could imagine he's also putting the spotlight on that issue to force people to come up with solutions, not to disparage BTC adoption.

Wow. (Face palm).

We do, when will you start?

https://cointelegraph.com/news/texas-regulator-allows-state-chartered-banks-to-hold-bitcoin/amp

Much of the criticism of Bitcoin's energy usage starts from the premise that it's a useless product. But even if you think digital currencies makes sense, Bitcoin mining can look like massively wasteful make-work. You can't make a shoe without factories, resources, workers, etc., all of which use lots of energy. It's not intuitive why you'd need to burn much energy at all to have a successful digital currency.

What's the argument for this?

The use of energy is what gives it its value.

Consumption doesn’t equal wasteful energy.

That's his 'for' bias. Reality is a bit different. It isn't the worst by any means, it will be less once all the coins are mined, but there is no denying that the mining of crypto is not at all green, even though many of the largest mines try to run green, ONLY because of trying to be cheap. The reality is the majority miners will run them on whatever they can get the for the cheapest.

The fair answer is, until we are completely on renewable energy, it's just adding to the problem. It isn't replacing anything that isn't already happening with something new (in regards to energy). It's still going to require energy to 'use' crypto, mining or not.

That is not true at all.

Sure. Which you could argue is a serious design flaw.

I drove a buddy of mine to pick up his new Tesla on Wednesday. It was about 85 degrees outside and pretty humid. We got to the dealership and they had the huge 2 story garage doors up in the front of the building and the air conditioning on at full blast.

Wrap your head around that one.....

It's all about "I've made this great new idea, but how do I fairly roll it out". You can't. You are correct, it was a serious design flaw. The only reason people saw it as good at all is because any random person could buy equipment to get 'free' money - which wasn't free. In the end though, a few random nobodies get uber rich, but the banks and old guard will still hold all the value - otherwise, they won't allow it to happen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/decrypt.co/62338/satoshi-nakamotos-view-on-bitcoins-energy-consumption-resurfaces%3famp=1

Not a flaw

Allow it to happen?

They can’t stop it…
Short of destroying the internet

I'm really digging El Salvador's President now that he's hit my radar. He really seems committed to Bitcoin as a young and charismatic leader. And he's going Green with his country mining it.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/11/1005231250/el-salvador-plans-to-use-electricity-generated-from-volcanoes-to-mine-bitcoin

Slow the hype train a bit. You are speaking way too much in absolutes. This isn't some leaked movie.

That’s a great argument.
You must be a master debater

My point is, while you are correct, generally once things are on the internet, it's too late - 100% agree - crypto is tied to FIAT. While one can say 'energy consumption' gives crypto it's value, the reality is what gives it is value currently is its ability to be converted to FIAT. Until that necessity is severed, there is always the possibility it can be controlled. This isn't FUD, it's just reality. Do I think it will happen? Not really, but then all it takes is a change in administration (in any viable country) to throw it into chaos. Governments CAN make it very difficult to use crytpo if they want to, even if they may not be able to get rid of it completely.

(and this is loose - realizing that crypto is just another currency with a conversion rate)

And no, I am not great at debates because I am horrible at laying out what I'm trying to say.

My problem with the things you are saying is your use of words that basically show you are so 'for' you disregard any possibility of bad as nonsense.

EDIT: and then I realized this isn't even the person I was responding to initially. As I reread the responses though I guess it still applies, but funny how after 2 posts you resorted to insults because someone disagrees with you.

Let's say I play devil's advocate and go further with the Elon 4D chess theory - maybe he sees that the BTC community has the potential to come up with disrupting innovations on clean energy, but not the Air Conditioning community.

Again, I don't know, chatting for the fun of the chat...

You can't do that here. The people with half their life savings in crypto get uptight.

I once had a coworker who tried to get me to buy Dinar. He sent me to all these web pages about the current situation and how it was going to be worth millions in a few years. You could not convince him anything different. (of course, this is nothing like that, but the mentality is the same at times). I would never get rich quick in crypto because I don't trust people or anything digital enough when it involves money to be that early of an adopter. (and yes I do have about 3% invested in crypto).

Cool car!

Are you sporting a "My Little Pony" bumper sticker

pasted_image (resized).png

No post .

I don't believe that can be true. Because if someone made a super efficient power way to mine it, that would mean it would be worth less.

The power usage currently is a drawback in my opinion that hurts it in current world where energy conservation is becoming more important. It may have been intentional at the time but 10 years later it's probably not the best approach.

I disagree, can’t be worthless.

If there was a super efficient power source they would still need the miners to do it. The entry cost is so massive they would have to recoup it some how…hence the price.

Now the cost of supper efficient power supply. Closest I can of what your suggesting is, Marathon is trying to build a Thorium reactor. Last I heard they estimate the cost of one reactor will be 11billion but could fit on a semi truck. For reference NASA is involved and wants to use Thorium reactors for a power supply on the moon.
But that’s only half the equation, you would also need the computer equipment. To get the super efficient power there is going to need to be a tremendous amount of work and money in. To recoup those costs you would have to charge for mined product.

Into the game theory of Bitcoin, with the built in halving happening every four years the incentive to mine should decrease over time. Like how in the first 12 years over 75% of the coins have been mined. Yet the last 25% ish will take 120 years (Numbers are alittle rough but close enough). The halving also should stabilize the price as btc matures.

(This my understanding but I’m not a miner maybe someone with expertise in the subject could chime in)

Sheesh I have a very small position of link at $24.60 and I’m getting my ass handed to me on it

I’ve been getting my ass handed to me for about 6 weeks.

LINK is a solid project in my opinion and I’ve spent a good bit of time on researching their project and fundamentals.

So is everyone rich & retired off Crypto yet?

0E181482-DABF-4264-9E84-CD1F7C2E4E75.gif

I knew it

Tired yes ..

Who ever cashed out at 60k probably is

To Cash or to Crash … so alike but so different

If I was this person, I’d reposition myself to improve dollar cost average instead of spending profits. Though current crypto adoption is way better than years ago, I would think the market will improve for another bull run this year.

I just closed out my Robin Hood account and I am only using Coinbase now, also I am completely done with Dodge.. no utility, unless I’m missing something? Looking for one last dip in ADA to buy more. My entire crypto portfolio is only $2000 so will be interesting to see what it is at the end of the year.

My impression was that the energy use would become exponentially higher through time, and thus unsustainable. If this is true, then at some point governments would have to intervene unless solar power makes huge advances. So I would say that the energy use is/will be a big part of any discussion.

Your second statement is pretty bold. That would be great if true. Could you please elaborate on this.

Not the case. Bitcoin's energy consumption does not ramp up with it's use/adoption. It does get more difficult to mine over time but the sources used to mine are getting more and more renewable over time. Minors are incentivized to find the cheapest energy. Which right now is excess "wasted" energy. They are also incentivized to use green energy because of market pressure. El Salvador is looking into using volcano's to power Bitcoin mining right now...as are other parts of the world. The money involved in this space will drive green energy innovation.

I bought a bit of Ada Friday night when it hit 1.39us. I thought I’d be smart though and only spend half of what I allocated for the weekend, in case it goes lower. Now it’s 20 cents higher and I still haven’t spent the second half. Though if I had spent it all Friday we would’ve seen crazy low prices on Saturday lol.
Also there’s nothing wrong with having “only” $2000 in crypto. If things go well you should see a nice return! And if things go sour for a while you won’t have bet too much on it.

Nah, but my crypto investments have gone up over 300% in the past 2 years, if my stock investments had done as well I actually would be retired now!