[G3n0t]

> Proof of work is inherently wasteful.

But it's a necessary evil for a _distributed_ currency. It's a way to protect payment validation from being controlled by a single operator by making a "hostile take over" very expensive. IMHO criticizing Bitcoin for its "proof of work" algorithm only converys a serious lack of understanding of how crypto currencies actually work.

There is an alternative, namely, the "proof of stake" scheme that Ethereum is going to switch over to but it has other short comings that might or might not outweigh the benefits of energy savings.

> - The ever expanding blockchain is wasteful (in storage, computation, network).

Well, the blockchain's current size is 323.54 GB. That's quite a lot but can be stored easily on a $100 SSD. Using $100 worth of storage to maintain an asset market of roughly 600 billion dollars is useful trade off, I would say. Of course, I know the blockchain is being replicated all over the planet but Google's cloud storage probably dwarves its storage requirements.

> - The throughput is way too slow.

Yes, 10 minutes is not very fast. However, compare that to inter bank transactions and this number seems blazingly fast again. However, in my opionion Bitcoin is emerging as an alternative to gold that's primarily used for storing value over long times. It's primary purpose will not be to maintain payment networks. This role will be taken by Ethereum or other alternatives like Stella Lumens, Loopring or Polkadot.

[jpmoral]

> Yes, 10 minutes is not very fast. However, compare that to inter bank transactions and this number seems blazingly fast again

Near instant bank transfers have been available in a lot of countries for many years now. Or did you mean something else?

[G3n0t]

Well, "SWIFT" international bank transactions require up to 5 work days. Here in Germany, sending money from one bank to another still takes at least one up to three _work_ days. So in the worst case, you're wiring money to sb on Friday and he will receive it by Wednesday. Compare that to 10 minutes required by Bitcoin anywhere on the planet.

Of course, there are special purpose banking products to accelerate transactions but they are also more expensive than Bitcoin's miner fee.

[enzo1982]

We have mandatory 1 business day bank transactions in Euro currency in Germany and the EU since 2012. If your bank is taking "up to three _work_ days" for regular Euro transactions they are violating the law (§675s BGB).

As of last year, most banks also offer instant (10 seconds) transactions for a small fee. This is planned to be made mandatory at the end of 2021. My bank is charging 0.50€ for such transactions which is significantly less than the median Bitcoin transaction cost (more than $1 in 2020 average, more than $5 currently).

[lxgr]

I'm in Germany as well, and bank to bank transfers across Europe (not just Germany) usually take either 1-2 seconds (when both banks support SEPA Instant) or a few hours otherwise.

Both methods are significantly cheaper (usually free) than Bitcoin transaction fees at the moment. As a concrete example, EUR withdrawals from Coinbase to a SEPA bank account are both faster and cheaper than BTC withdrawals to a wallet at this point.

If a transfer takes any more than two full business days (IIRC), one of the banks involved is out of SEPA compliance.

The only thing that _really_ slows down bank to bank transfers is when your payment gets flagged for review for security or compliance reasons, but arguably, both also benefit you (as a customer not wanting to lose money or a citizen not wanting to indirectly cover the effects of somebody else's tax evasion or money laundering). In my experience, this also happens very rarely, but performance of this can vary from bank to bank.

[tmarice]

https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/be59a6bb09757ef4dec9ed7841...

$2M transfer costs $1. From/to anywhere in the world.

As a comparison, my freelance fees regularly came $13 short, and the only explanation was "interbank transfer charges". Plus the sender had to pay his own fees. And then my own bank would charge me ~$15 for accepting deposits from outside EU.

I'll take Bitcoin over the traditional banking cartel any day.

[lxgr]

True, many banks charge unreasonable fees for international transactions, but that‘s fixable: There is a very competitive market for international money transmission.

You‘re probably losing out much more than $13+$15 on bad exchange rates in the process too, so you should definitely shop around for options.

Chances are that the same transaction on Bitcoin, including conversion fees between your client‘s currency X and BTC, and BTC and your country’s currency Y (which you definitely will need, if not for food, then at least for income tax) is more expensive.

[martin_a]

> I'll take Bitcoin over the traditional banking cartel any day.

Good luck paying your lunch with Bitcoin.

[jpmoral]

In Australia, instant bank to bank transfers are free. And I always thought it was behind the rest of the world (except the US).

[girvo]

Surprisingly we’re often one of the first markets for new financial tech. Though we were behind for a while until Osko was adopted.

We’re getting mandated bank API access too, interestingly. Or we were. Dunno where that’s at now.

[aww_dang]

> criticizing Bitcoin for its "proof of work" algorithm only converys a serious lack of understanding of how crypto currencies actually work

Other algorithms exist and further innovations are likely. I don't agree that BTC's design features are beyond criticism.

[G3n0t]

I didn't mean to imply Bitcoin shouldn't be criticized. But saying Bitcoin simply wastes energy by applying a "proof of work" scheme is totally naive. It's not easy to replace and the advantages and risks of "proof of stake" are not clear, yet, I belive.

BTW: For others who have never heard of "proof of stake" and "proof of work" ...

"Proof of work" requires miners to solve a cryptographic puzzle taking the giant share of all computing time required to validate a block of transactions. This is to assure nobody gains complete control over the blockchain and, hence, keep it being a decentralized effort. On the other hand, by providing a miner fee and a reward (currently about 6 BTC) the system creates incentive for miners to keep on validating Bitcoin transactions despite the costs. It's a careful balance and probably the most difficult aspect of the Bitcoin system to grasp.

"Proof of stake" means the miner with the highest monetary stake receives the largest share of the mining fees. In this scheme a miner needs to deposit quite a lot of money to be allowed to compete in the creation of the next transaction block. So it's not computing power enabling a successful miner but his or hers prior investment in the crypto currency. I think you understand now, why such a scheme would have been impossible to implement in Bitcoin 12 years ago.

Ethereum is preparing to switch over to "proof of stake" at the same time as they're preparing to run multiple block chains at the same time. Ethereum 2.0 hopes to save a lot of cost in maintaining its block chain and at the same time to boost its transaction turn over significantly. But it's also a risky undertaking. Keep that in mind if you plan to invest in Ethereum.

[aww_dang]

Nano has no fees or mining. Instead of traditional distributed proof of stake, it uses open representative voting.

https://docs.nano.org/what-is-nano/overview/#representatives...

If nano (or any other tech) achieves greater utility for transactions without using proof of work, then it is arguable that BTC's use of energy is wasteful.

However, to be specific I would defend the consumer/miner's choice to use energy in whichever way he subjectively feels brings him the most value. I'd say it is debatable whether BTC's proof of work is wasteful. Calling this claim naive appears as short sighted. Tech is a constantly evolving landscape. Increases in efficiency are arguably already here.

[1ark]

Nano, and many other projects, have much better and efficient tech than BTC. The problem with most of them are the screwups in various proportions (premines, developer fee, foundations), and how they are developed.

BTC development is RFC based, and users approve by running own nodes, and miners have to comply in between. Until a project comes along which doesn't try to swindle its user base BTC will stay dominant.

[aww_dang]

Nano users run their own nodes, but the main incentive for running a node is for service providers, developers and merchants.

There's no swindle in my view. As a user of the technology perhaps I'm biased. Although because I approached it from purely to solve a problem and not as an investment, I don't think I am as biased as others.

XRP would be a good example of a swindle surrounded by hype and marketing. Altcoins are rightfully scrutinized, but I think in the case of Nano there's unfair generalization without actual investigation into the technology.

What is popular isn't always the best technology.

[rojeee]

> But it's a necessary evil for a _distributed_ currency.

Bitcoin is an equity based currency. If you have some Bitcoin you "own" it much like you would own a physical thing, like a lump of gold. And indeed, you are right, to implement a permissionless equity based currency, you probably need something like proof of work to ensure that there is an objective ordering of transactions.

However....! You can also build a credit based currency, whereby anyone can issue IOUs which are agreements between a debtor and a creditor. In this regard you don't "own" an IOU but you are a participant in an agreement which is an IOU. That might be pedantic but it's a difference from an equity based money system. For a credit based system you don't need proof of work or an objective ordering of transactions as any transaction is just a bilateral agreement between two parties. You could make the IOUs bearer instruments by introducing some blockchain elements (unilateral ledger updates) but ultimately there isn't much point in this because you have to trust the issuer. The difficulty with this type of system is that it's tough to bootstrap it - how do you measure reputation in such a system? How do you determine who's credit is good and who's credit is bad?

I think it would be exciting to see more research into distributed credit based monetary systems. Interestingly, our current monetary system is basically a pure credit system and that in this system we can view different types of credit as having a position in a money hierarchy. At the top you have central bank credit, next bank credit, next company credit, next credit issued by individuals. When an issuer's credit can be trusted enough such that people can use it as a medium of exchange (it can be endorsed from one party to another) then it _becomes_ money. That's quite cool. You can build a whole distributed monetary system from an endogenous money supply!

[kornbattery]

In addition of being quite bad in latency, a single block also cannot hold a lot of transactions. You'll always have to store the mass of transactions somewhere else, which takes away from the purpose of blockchain in the first place.