[orthecreedence]

> I can memorize 20 words and cross whatever border I want with $100 million in my brain, and full confidence that that money is mine. That's pretty damn cool.

No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless.

> It sounds like you're projecting what you think Bitcoin should be.

Probably, yes. Bitcoin is a failed project. It spawned many others, some of which may be successful. I am interested to see how they do.

> To argue that a small country's worth of energy being used to secure Bitcoin is a poor use of resources, you really have to consider how much energy the worldwide banking system consumes in all its complexity to do the same thing. I don't know how to do that calculation, but my point is there's more to it than you're seeing.

That's assuming that banking is JUST storing and sending value. Banking does a whole lot more. I understand the drive behind taking that power away from banks, but it's just not going to happen until one can fluidly exchange USD for some for of highly-stable distributed currency. And once that happens, banks are still going to exist and handle most of the transactions! Please, take a stroll in r/cryptocurrency or r/bitcoin and see how many people are whining about how their private key got lost or stolen or etc etc. Banks exist because they not only store value, but protect it in numerous ways. They will continue to exist past whatever cryptocurrency-revolution people envision.

> You have to also consider which energy is being used. Dirty energy is certainly part of it. But a lot of the energy used is through geographic renewables arbitrage. For example, there are hydro power facilities in China that were built and never fully utilized or connected to the main grid. You can set up miners nearby those facilities to use the surplus energy, and as long as you are connected to the internet, you're good to go.

Great? So a fraction of the energy would have been wasted anyway. Fine, use that for bitcoin mining. For everything else, it's pouring carbons into the atmosphere so idiots who don't know how investing works can leverage 100x on margin while the exchange they're betting on is manipulating the price to call their bets and wipe them out.

> It's also a potentially great incentive for governments to start NEW renewables facilities, because they have a way to use the surplus power until their populations grow to use the full capacity of those plants.

Really? "Let's buy a bunch of toxic waste and dump it into the river because the government will be incentivized to not output toxic waste" isn't the best argument for why bitcoin is useful.

[tluyben2]

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless.

Yes, for those amounts. But for several purposes, unfortunately most of them 'evil' (money laundering / terrorism), this works fine. I know it's used a lot for people in countries where getting currency out above a certain threshold is very hard unless you are at the highest level of corruption with great success. They are not so bothered with losing a few 1000$ by fluctuation as their goal is getting it out and converted to something else (safer) (USD/EUR) asap.

[ecwilson]

And when the internet was first a thing, shortly after, most traffic was porn, until fairly recently porn was surpassed by social media. And since then, there have been world changing social movements enabled by the internet, and the exposure of horrible abuses (police, clergy, dictators).

Tomorrow, who knows. if North Korea or Russia or China turn half of the US into a nuclear wasteland, the banks are unlikely to function very well for those who remain. There are hundreds of such scenarios that could play out in the next 50 years -- Bitcoin is a great disaster hedge, if nothing else. Everyone should have 1% of their portfolio be crypto, IMO.

The criticisms of its fluctuation are valid, but like you said, there are plenty of people today for whom the fluctuations are tolerable for their use case. As the fluctuations get less, it will become tolerable for even more.

[nickpsecurity]

In response to stability criticism, chadski on Lobsters told me about so-called stablecoins with MakerDAO and Dai being in active use:

https://makerdao.com/en/whitepaper/

It's an Ethereum-based scheme that's tied in value to the U.S. dollar. That sounds good. The methods to achieve that look... complex... to say the least. If they work, then there's at least one of them that's stable so long as there's no serious problems in it and/or Ethereum. Well, that sounds promising. ;)

[orthecreedence]

I'm aware of Maker.

It's a bunch of math that uses market mechanisms to try to solve the problem of stability when the only real answer for the question "how do I stabilize a cryptocurrency" is "for each unit you issue, you have a bank account with $1 matching USD in it."

Maker essentially banks on the fact that a bundle of cryptos (ETH and a few others) will not drop past a certain amount in relation to USD over a given amount of time. They've been correct, so far, but that doesn't mean there won't come a time when the markets drop past whatever magical threshold they've set.

I'm not putting down the project, I followed it closely for a while and a lot of work went into it. My point is you can't really have a stablecoin unless you have the USD to back it up.

An interesting plot twist will be if Maker derives from other stablecoins (ones backed by USD reserves, like GUSD) and not ETH.

[teknologist]

I would think that, regardless of the math, the token prices might remain stable just because people think the algorithms are doing their work. Kind of like an "invisible hand" situation.

Circulating supply fluctuations don't seem to have much of an influence on crypto prices (as seen with quarterly Binance Coin burns for instance)

[thisisit]

>If they work

That is a big "if". Stability is a principle which has been tried time and again in fiat money and failed. Too many times to count. See GBP peg etc. for examples.

If something is unstable, it is because the market deems it to be. Adding an artificial support goes against that same market.

Cryptocurrency circles like to talk about government control being a bad thing. But in the same vein cheer stablcoins which exert near similar control - by algos or by adding coin supply. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[tomglynch]

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless.

From an outside perspective, I don't think it's worth continuing the discussion as is. Perhaps you should both come back in a few hours when everyone is a bit calmer.

[briatx]

> No, you can have 30K BTC in your brain, but unfortunately the USD value fluctuates so wildly that as a store of value, it's useless.

No, this is an important distinction. Bitcoin isn't liquid enough to count as actual money and proponents of the idea that sending bitcoin is the same as sending money are glossing over the cost to buy bitcoin, and the cost of transferring it back to actual money on the other side.

Having access to 30K BTC doesn't do you much good if nobody is willing to trade you goods or real money for it on the other side.

[ecwilson]

You can exchange 30k bitcoin with less slippage than you think OTC.

[robertAngst]

Give it a few years.

Seeing how Americans Elected Trump, I can't imagine the USD being better than BTC over 10 years.

[adrianN]

Have you already converted all your savings to bitcoin?

[camgunz]

For what it's worth, I disagree. I also think Bitcoin's energy usage is an existential issue and agree it's ridiculous we think things like "I can memorize my wallet passphrase" are at all at the same level of importance.