Is Crypto dying or just dropping for the moment?

[Jarhyn]

Really, crypto is about 1000% better than normal banking. When I want to send money, I open the program, send the money, and then it has been sent. I want to receive money? I generate a new account, and I can get money in 5 minutes anonymously without asking another human being in the world for "permission" to do so, nor notification, nor any other thing.

Just to be clear: The inability of governments to monitor transactions and thereby exert their legitimate taxation authorities is being treated as a feature, not a bug?

For some cryptocurrency? Absolutely. It's exactly the reason Monero was developed, and is explicitly a feature.

If the government wishes to tax such things, they will have to tax at the entry/exit points of that economy at some alternative rate. Perhaps this is a good launching point for a concept such as an "exchange tariff".

Bitcoin is interesting because while I can generate a new account and send/receive money without permission, it is not that they lack the ability to monitor it or even tax it; the ledger is open, meaning the government sees all transactions by all people. It can still be taxed. The tax can even be built into the network. The difference is, no financial institution gets to "credit check" me for the dubious privilege of hiding and profiting off my money more than I can.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Crypto is a 1,000 better than normal banking? Can I get a Crypto line of credit for my business? Can I get a building loan? Can my customers pay for my products online through crypto? Can I pay vendors via ACH or wires via crypto? Is Crypto carefully regulated by the federal government so that the bad guys can't launder money through it? The answer is no.

Yes, with Etherium you can set up all of the above, from lines of credit, to interest, really any financial mechanism you can imagine is there.

The point is that ACH and wires are not things with crypto because they are absolutely obsolete. Because they are generally open ledgers, they absolutely can be regulated and monitored. They just aren't because government is broken and ancient.

The answer is, you didn't do your research.

Yes, I would agree that I was wrong, they do offer LOCs (not sure about building loans). But what are the terms? I value having banker who knows my business and can provide a LOC that fits the needs of my business. I'm suspicious that an LOC with a faceless entity with no relationship can provide the service that I have now. I don't mind following regulations and paying my fair share of taxes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Really, crypto is about 1000% better than normal banking. When I want to send money, I open the program, send the money, and then it has been sent. I want to receive money? I generate a new account, and I can get money in 5 minutes anonymously without asking another human being in the world for "permission" to do so, nor notification, nor any other thing.

Just to be clear: The inability of governments to monitor transactions and thereby exert their legitimate taxation authorities is being treated as a feature, not a bug?

For some cryptocurrency? Absolutely. It's exactly the reason Monero was developed, and is explicitly a feature.

If the government wishes to tax such things, they will have to tax at the entry/exit points of that economy at some alternative rate. Perhaps this is a good launching point for a concept such as an "exchange tariff".

Bitcoin is interesting because while I can generate a new account and send/receive money without permission, it is not that they lack the ability to monitor it or even tax it; the ledger is open, meaning the government sees all transactions by all people. It can still be taxed. The tax can even be built into the network. The difference is, no financial institution gets to "credit check" me for the dubious privilege of hiding and profiting off my money more than I can.

What government regulations are you trying to avoid? Once money launderers start exploiting the bitcoin universe, the government regulations will catch up to them.

 

[Jarhyn]

For some cryptocurrency? Absolutely. It's exactly the reason Monero was developed, and is explicitly a feature.

If the government wishes to tax such things, they will have to tax at the entry/exit points of that economy at some alternative rate. Perhaps this is a good launching point for a concept such as an "exchange tariff".

Bitcoin is interesting because while I can generate a new account and send/receive money without permission, it is not that they lack the ability to monitor it or even tax it; the ledger is open, meaning the government sees all transactions by all people. It can still be taxed. The tax can even be built into the network. The difference is, no financial institution gets to "credit check" me for the dubious privilege of hiding and profiting off my money more than I can.

What government regulations are you trying to avoid? Once money launderers start exploiting the bitcoin universe, the government regulations will catch up to them.

Generally? The government regulations surrounding the purchase of things they want to keep from being exchanged. Primarily, that's going to be drugs.

But in terms of accounts and permissions and power, it is a fact that twice in my life I have been told by a bank that they will not open an account with me.

I can imagine I am not alone in this regard. For some it is much harder than others, as well. Others are locked out of the banking system for other reasons, often associated with criminal history or drug charges.

The fact is, you can still arrange a personal relationship manager for a loan over a crypto platform. It just uses a different dollar

 

[barbos]

If Paris Climate Agreement is worth anything, all countries should immediately ban all crypto-currencies.

 

[Jarhyn]

If Paris Climate Agreement is worth anything, all countries should immediately ban all crypto-currencies.

Not exactly accurate. As I have pointed out, there are absolutely paradigms of such ledger technologies that don't cause this outcome. It is proof of stake vs proof of work, wherein Proof of Work is in fact the core of the problem currently.

Etherium, for instance, is already in the process of converting to Proof of Stake.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Crypto is a 1,000 better than normal banking? Can I get a Crypto line of credit for my business? Can I get a building loan? Can my customers pay for my products online through crypto? Can I pay vendors via ACH or wires via crypto? Is Crypto carefully regulated by the federal government so that the bad guys can't launder money through it? The answer is no.

Yes, with Etherium you can set up all of the above, from lines of credit, to interest, really any financial mechanism you can imagine is there.

How does that work? If I borrow 100 units of Etherium, and then it pops to 2x, don't I owe 200 units of Etherium?

 

[barbos]

If Paris Climate Agreement is worth anything, all countries should immediately ban all crypto-currencies.

Not exactly accurate. As I have pointed out, there are absolutely paradigms of such ledger technologies that don't cause this outcome. It is proof of stake vs proof of work, wherein Proof of Work is in fact the core of the problem currently.

Etherium, for instance, is already in the process of converting to Proof of Stake.

good to know, but until they switch to this eco-friendly system it should be banned.
And I am no expert but my understanding is that even without mining it's still very computationally wasteful.
Security is based on large number of participants doing lots of hashing just to verify transactions.

 

[Jayjay]

Crypto is a 1,000 better than normal banking? Can I get a Crypto line of credit for my business? Can I get a building loan? Can my customers pay for my products online through crypto? Can I pay vendors via ACH or wires via crypto? Is Crypto carefully regulated by the federal government so that the bad guys can't launder money through it? The answer is no.

Yes, with Etherium you can set up all of the above, from lines of credit, to interest, really any financial mechanism you can imagine is there.

How does that work? If I borrow 100 units of Etherium, and then it pops to 2x, don't I owe 200 units of Etherium?

If the loan is somehow tied to dollars, you wouldn't owe 200 ethereum but 50. If the loan is in ethereum only, but you spent it all before it doubled, then you'd have to find double the cash to be able to repay.

But that's the case with any currency. If you take a loan in dollars, and invest it in a barn in Russia which you pay in rubles, you have to be prepared for ruble crashing and making your task of earning back your money that much harder.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How does that work? If I borrow 100 units of Etherium, and then it pops to 2x, don't I owe 200 units of Etherium?

If the loan is somehow tied to dollars, you wouldn't owe 200 ethereum but 50.

100 Etherium is loaned at 1 E = $100 US, or so the person receives 100 E which is worth $10,000 US. I pay back 50 when it is still $100 US. But then Etherium doubles in value because Elon Musk tweeted something. So now I need to pay back 50 Etherium, but it is $200 US per 1 E. I likely don't have any Etherium coming in or if it is coming in as E, the cost to those I'm doing business with is higher to them. So there would still be $200 US/E x 50 E, to give us $10,000 due back.

Likewise, if a Musk tweet crashed Etherium to 10% it's value, I can payback the remaining 50 E with $500 US.

But that's the case with any currency.

Not really as currencies, especially US, are a lot more stable, and this is the major weakness to crypto-funny money. If I take a mortgage for $50,000, I'll like not be able to pay it back easily due to hyper-inflation or lose my ass due massive deflation.

Please correct any errors in this logic. They may be abounding.

 

[Gospel]

Nostalgia for me right now. I was an earlier adopter of bitcoin back when it first started and had a PC considered high-end back then. I had bitcoins sitting in an old wallet, and thankfully I never throw out my computers. Anyhow, I quit after getting 5 coins. Years later It became a pain to gain access to the coins then convert the old wallet, convert bitcoin to cash but it was more of a pain to get my bank to accept the cash and for me to prove to the IRS that I didn't launder money. Good LAWD!!! I'm sure they were happy with the damn 30 something percent they nabbed cause I only took away around $150,000 something after owing taxes. At least my momma's house is paid for.

Thanks, Bitcoin!!!

 

[TomC]

Could someone explain why cryptocurrency is an environmental problem?

It seems to me that a few dozen people driving to their local bank branch would consume more fossil fuels than a billion dollars in cryptocurrency transactions.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

Could someone explain why cryptocurrency is an environmental problem?

It seems to me that a few dozen people driving to their local bank branch would consume more fossil fuels than a billion dollars in cryptocurrency transactions.
Tom

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

...as the price of bitcoin has soared, so has its thirst for energy. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, a tool created by researchers at the British university, in the week ending May 13th bitcoin mining used electricity at a rate equivalent to 150 terawatt-hours per year (see chart), more than the entire annual energy consumption of the Netherlands.

 

[bilby]

100 Etherium is loaned at 1 E = $100 US, or so the person receives 100 E which is worth $10,000 US. I pay back 50 when it is still $100 US. But then Etherium doubles in value because Elon Musk tweeted something. So now I need to pay back 50 Etherium, but it is $200 US per 1 E. I likely don't have any Etherium coming in or if it is coming in as E, the cost to those I'm doing business with is higher to them. So there would still be $200 US/E x 50 E, to give us $10,000 due back.

Likewise, if a Musk tweet crashed Etherium to 10% it's value, I can payback the remaining 50 E with $500 US.

But that's the case with any currency.

Not really as currencies, especially US, are a lot more stable, and this is the major weakness to crypto-funny money. If I take a mortgage for $50,000, I'll like not be able to pay it back easily due to hyper-inflation or lose my ass due massive deflation.

Please correct any errors in this logic. They may be abounding.

Currencies may be more stable. Or not.

My brother lived in Omsk, Siberia, for a year working as an English teacher at the University. When he arrived, the official exchange rate was one rouble to one US dollar. By the time he returned to the UK, one US dollar was buying seven thousand roubles.

Fortunately his contract was in US dollars, so his pay didn't drop seven thousand-fold.

That was back in the early the 1990s, if that wasn't obvious.

 

[Gospel]

Could someone explain why cryptocurrency is an environmental problem?

It seems to me that a few dozen people driving to their local bank branch would consume more fossil fuels than a billion dollars in cryptocurrency transactions.
Tom

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

...as the price of bitcoin has soared, so has its thirst for energy. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, a tool created by researchers at the British university, in the week ending May 13th bitcoin mining used electricity at a rate equivalent to 150 terawatt-hours per year (see chart), more than the entire annual energy consumption of the Netherlands.

Man if bitcoin is using up that much energy I can't even imagine how much power is consumed by banking institutions, their buildings, ATM machines, the VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX transactions over the internet, armored vehicles, and so on. They must make Crypto power consumption look like 1/8 in comparison to 6/8 of an inch on a ruler.

 

[Swammerdami]

It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. ...

You can read more at this link:

Man if bitcoin is using up that much energy I can't even imagine how much power is consumed by banking institutions, their buildings, ATM machines, the VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX transactions over the internet, armored vehicles, and so on. They must make Crypto power consumption look like 1/8 in comparison to 6/8 of an inch on a ruler.

I wonder if you're missing the point.

Bitcoin is DESIGNED to deliberately waste billions of dollars worth of electricity! This is, believe it or don't, a "clever" part of its security system.

 

[Politesse]

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

Man if bitcoin is using up that much energy I can't even imagine how much power is consumed by banking institutions, their buildings, ATM machines, the VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX transactions over the internet, armored vehicles, and so on. They must make Crypto power consumption look like 1/8 in comparison to 6/8 of an inch on a ruler.

Well, I presented some actual figures. Perhaps you could do likewise, and then establish exactly how much of the bank's energy costs are directly replaced by Crypto transactions? How many lights do you estimate are now being turned off because Bitcoin has made them unnecessary? How many former ATMs are non-operational?

 

[Jarhyn]

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

Man if bitcoin is using up that much energy I can't even imagine how much power is consumed by banking institutions, their buildings, ATM machines, the VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX transactions over the internet, armored vehicles, and so on. They must make Crypto power consumption look like 1/8 in comparison to 6/8 of an inch on a ruler.

Well, I presented some actual figures. Perhaps you could do likewise, and then establish exactly how much of the bank's energy costs are directly replaced by Crypto transactions? How many lights do you estimate are now being turned off because Bitcoin has made them unnecessary? How many former ATMs are non-operational?

Not to mention the fact that it's wholely unnecessary.

You can have a coin wherein the metric is not "useless Busywork" for determining who, when, and why blocks get awarded.

It isn't pretend money though. It's as real as any other currency, the sum total of which are just schemes for exchanging ownership of otherwise numbers within a context, and occasionally other forms of non-reproducible tokens.

Ultimately, the energy we waste on bitcoin's meaningless and pointless busywork is significant because it is the destruction of intrinsic value (the power to do meaningful work) in exchange for an arbitrary assignment of numbers. At no point should we be destroying intrinsics when we can absolutely do not-that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Could someone explain why cryptocurrency is an environmental problem?

It seems to me that a few dozen people driving to their local bank branch would consume more fossil fuels than a billion dollars in cryptocurrency transactions.
Tom

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

...as the price of bitcoin has soared, so has its thirst for energy. According to the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, a tool created by researchers at the British university, in the week ending May 13th bitcoin mining used electricity at a rate equivalent to 150 terawatt-hours per year (see chart), more than the entire annual energy consumption of the Netherlands.

Russia's largest bitcoin mining farm.



Not a problem when the taxpayers pay the electric bill but the profits go to the elite.

 

[Gospel]

Transactions aren't the issue, except insofar as they are motivators for production. It has to do with the vast amounts of energy consumed when "mining" a new Bitcoin. This isn't a problem in a relatively carbon-neutral power grid like Musk's Bay Area haunts, but if you're burning, say, dirty coal to produce Bitcoin, the cost of the digital land grab can get extensive. And even on a cleaner grid we could still ask whether it makes sense, given limited environmental resources, to commit an entire nation's worth of electrical production to "mining" pretend money with little real utility.

You can read more at this link:

Man if bitcoin is using up that much energy I can't even imagine how much power is consumed by banking institutions, their buildings, ATM machines, the VISA, MASTERCARD, AMEX transactions over the internet, armored vehicles, and so on. They must make Crypto power consumption look like 1/8 in comparison to 6/8 of an inch on a ruler.

Well, I presented some actual figures. Perhaps you could do likewise, and then establish exactly how much of the bank's energy costs are directly replaced by Crypto transactions? How many lights do you estimate are now being turned off because Bitcoin has made them unnecessary? How many former ATMs are non-operational?

I dunno yo. I don't have that data but it doesn't take a Rocket Scientist (winks at Bomb#69) to believe that Cryptocurrency has time to adjust before having a footprint as large as one that was around before the industrial revolution.

Edit: I didn't intend to make excuses for crypto, I was genuinely intrigued by the concept of the world's monetary systems' impact over the centuries.