[vertoc]

I'm on neither side of this debate, but citing how much Bitcoin is worth seems like a really weak argument in favor of traction.

I think a more convincing argument would be citing # of transactions or use cases (store of value, cheaper way of sending large amount of money or money internationally, etc.)

[blhack]

There were 320k transactions in the last 24 hours on mainnet alone (for bitcoin).

[arcticbull]

How many of them were fake? 95%. [1] While I understand that applies to exchanges and not mainnet, the reality is that each mainet transaction is impacted because it's the 95% of fake volume that sets the price and therefore the terms of exchange for the "real" transactions.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/cbovaird/2019/03/22/95-of-repor...

[darawk]

None of them. There is no such thing as a 'fake' bitcoin transaction. What you are thinking of is fake trading volume on exchanges. Those are very different things.

[blhack]

It's baffling to me seeing the progression of anti-blockchain people. They keep insisting that it's all a joke, and yet every single day the level of adoption keeps on increasing.

I feel like I'm watching the internet be born again.

[arcticbull]

Sadly it’s the opposite of a joke. 1 bitcoin transaction is 607kWh (or 288kgCO2 and 85g of ewaste). And the more efficient technology gets the less efficient bitcoin gets. Patently absurd.

95% of volume is fraudulent, and decentralized and trustless means that’s an intentional, irrevocable part of the system. Being able to circumvent international sanctions and pay terrorists is a feature. North Korea has been accumulating a large stockpile. More than 50% of hash power is concentrated in 3 mining pools in the PRC.

The higher the price goes the more you have to pay miners for the same job. Just maintaining the price requires $14.4M in new money each day to pay the miners. If BTC goes to $80K each you’d need $144M in new money per day to pay the miners.

And it solves no actual problems people have. Sweet joke fam. I feel like I’m watching the liberty reserve all over again.

[darawk]

> And the more efficient technology gets the less efficient bitcoin gets.

Incorrect. The technology getting more efficient does not make Bitcoin less efficient. You probably didn't actually think through this point, because it's nonsensical.

> 95% of volume is fraudulent, and decentralized and trustless means that’s an intentional, irrevocable part of the system.

95% of volume on exchanges that nobody pays any attention to anyway. Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, Bittrex, etc all have completely legitimate volume numbers.

> The higher the price goes the more you have to pay miners for the same job.

This is only true as long as new bitcoins are still being minted. And it's also only true if the rate of increase in the price outstrips the decrease in the minting rate.

> And it solves no actual problems people have. Sweet joke fam. I feel like I’m watching the liberty reserve all over again.

Ok. Don't buy any then. Meanwhile, people living under repressive and fiscally irresponsible governments will continue to use it to protect their wealth, as they have been doing.

[easymovet]

You are right that we will pay miners more in the future, that sounds like an opportunity not a problem.

[acdha]

> They keep insisting that it's all a joke, and yet every single day the level of adoption keeps on increasing.

Do you have a citation for that claim? The people hoping to get rich quick in the space are active but there's almost no usage by the general populace.

> I feel like I'm watching the internet be born again.

The early internet had huge barriers to adoption (computers were expensive, network connections were expensive and glacially slow), but each phase of expansion had immediate popular uses. As an example, the web was ~1990, NCSA Mosaic came out in 1993 (Netscape was 1994) and by 1995 it was a household term with rapidly growing personal, business, and government usage for a wide range of tasks. In the earlier era, things were more limited due to connectivity issues but there were still substantial numbers of people using email, usenet, FTP, etc.

In contrast, Bitcoin has been out for 11 years, didn't have any of the barriers to adoption like the early internet, but if it disappeared tomorrow almost nobody outside of the industry would have any interruption in their lives.

[arcticbull]

No, I’m saying that the fake trading volume sets the price which then determines the number of bitcoin sent in the real transactions. Since nothing is priced in BTC the exchange rate defines the quantities transacted.

[darawk]

That seems like a pretty silly argument. The transactions are not in any sense fake. The fake trading volume is also not in any sense setting the price. Roughly 5-10 billion usd volume per day is completely legitimate, and it is that volume that actually determines the price. The fake volume on low quality exchanges is just noise that follows the price, it isn't a component of price discovery.

[blhack]

>fake trading volume sets the price which then determines the number of bitcoin sent in the real transactions.

How is the price dictating the number of transactions?

[arcticbull]

That’s not what I said.

[tuesdayrain]

I'm constsntly amused by the lack of technical understanding on HN when it comes to cryptocurrencies. That article says 95% of trading volume is fake. This is absolutely different from on chain transactions, 100% of which are real.

[arcticbull]

No I get it but the sum total of transactions, real and fake determine the exchange rate between real money and crypto. If the fake volume had no impact at all, why on earth do you think they’re doing it? For their health? Fun? Cmon now.