[zallarak]

Clarifications (this website perpetuates some common misconceptions):

- A single bitcoin "transaction" can actually have thousands of inputs and thousands of outputs. So energy "per transaction" or "transactions per second" is not analogous to a typical monetary transaction.

- Bitcoin does not compete with literal credit card transactions (although some use it like that today). I'd compare Bitcoin on-chain transactions with how nation-states settle their central-bank ledgers with gold. Gold is the best comparison to Bitcoin because trading in hard gold is "final". Credit card transactions happen on a higher level in the financial stack. As does cash. As do bank transfers. All of these bubble down into interbank transfers that eventually settle on the base layer of central banks. So compared to shipping and securing gold, Bitcoin is quite cheap!

- Adding to the above point; if Bitcoin succeeds in beind "adopted", it would not mean we no longer use credit cards. Credit cards would just port their underlying mechanism on top of Bitcoin instead of fiat moneys.

[nrp]

The linked website attempts to quantify the impact with some stated assumptions. You’ve stated some alternative assumptions, but haven’t quantified the conclusions to determine if they hold.

I’ve been long on Bitcoin, but I am exiting my position over concerns about the environment impact. I don’t think it’s plausible that a proof-of-work based blockchain can be anywhere near as efficient as centralized ledgers are. If any of the proof-of-stake based solutions ever gain traction, maybe I’ll participate in those.

[Erlich_Bachman]

> can be anywhere near as efficient as centralized ledgers are

Yeah, no one ever claimed that they would be more efficient. If you have invested assuming the efficiency is the main goal, you have been misled. What they do provide is efficient decentralized ledgers, which is a whole other game completely.

[konschubert]

Have a look at stellar.

[xg15]

> Bitcoin does not compete with literal credit card transactions (although some use it like that today). ... So compared to shipping and securing gold, Bitcoin is quite cheap!

I haven't heard the tagline "Bitcoin - it's cheaper than moving around gold on warships" yet. So far, Bitcoin has always been advertised as a new form of internet payment and a new decentralised currently for everyday use.

It's also the very point of cryptocurrencies that there are no intermediate agents, like central banks that could make up the lower levels of your stack.

So the usage patterns that Bitcoin was marketed with absolutely put it in competition with visa transactions.

[btcd]

I think it's fair to blame the marketing mistake. Bitcoin was built for the purpose of making convenient payments. However, it turned out to be an ingenious alternative to gold.

I wish it were labelled cryptoasset instead of cryptocurrency.

In the long-term, the objective nature of Bitcoin should prevail and we'll assess its benefit by whether it is a successful store of value.

[TazeTSchnitzel]

Are you comparing Bitcoin to settlement with gold to make Bitcoin seem less inefficient? This seems like a misleading comparison, because which significant central banks still physically move gold around for settlement? Either they don't move gold or it is only moved virtually, and in either case Bitcoin is vastly less efficient.

[zallarak]

I am comparing it to settling gold in that a settlement is "final". You can reverse a credit card transaction, a bank wire, etc. You cannot reverse a Bitcoin transaction or Gold shipment without significant risk and cost.

Example that leads me to believe central banks still settle gold: https://www.bullionstar.com/blogs/ronan-manly/bank-of-englan...

[paulmd]

Off-chain transactions effectively don't exist at all in terms of transaction volume, and the players who staked money on Lightning lost approximately 99.97% of that money.

https://cryptobriefing.com/ln-nodes-lightning-network/

[xiphias2]

I think you haven't read how Lightning Network works.

People don't need to stake money, just create a multisig transaction with a peer and having a transaction signed by the other peer to get their money back when they want to close the lightning channel. They can get extra fees for enabling transactions, though not that big amount.

[lifty]

You misread the article. Those large nodes that used lightning had a rather small return (0.03%) but they haven’t lost their money.

[blueprint]

Don't know why you were downvoted. Excellent comment.

[sschueller]

Because many believe that Satoshi's vision was to do quick on chain transactions and be used like cash not like gold.

[fierarul]

Perhaps the Satoshi group should have called their invention BitGold instead of BitCoin? Although it's normal to see tech guys bad at marketing/branding.