Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by shawnz 1951 days ago
Transaction rate is not the only possible way to judge the value a monetary system.

Also: Bitcoin's maximum possible transaction rate could be arbitrarily scaled up without impacting the electricity usage at all (but it would have other trade-offs not related to energy usage, which has made it hard to establish a consensus on the issue).
2 comments
AaronFriel 1950 days ago
> Bitcoin's maximum possible transaction rate could be arbitrarily scaled up without impacting the electricity usage at all

If it can, why hasn't it?

link
shawnz 1950 days ago
For example, increasing the block size could have some disadvantages like increasing how quickly the size of the blockchain grows, which will make it harder for new users/miners to join the network and possibly increase centralization.

It's also not clear the market has a strong demand for an increased transaction rate yet. Eventually it will be almost unavoidable, but we might not be there yet. If that's the case then it might be harmful to increase the number of frivolous/unnecessary transactions for no reason.

link
vkou 1951 days ago
Transaction rate is the only possible way to judge the value of a monetary system.

A system where you essentially can't transact is economically dead. The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it, not in how wealthy a dragon sitting on a pile of gold can get.

It can be a speculative system, but that's far less useful than being a monetary system. Bitcoin is a terrible currency in the same way that houses, or diamond rings are a terrible currency. Settling transactions in them is slow and incredibly expensive.

link
shawnz 1950 days ago
Not true. For example a monetary system might be valuable because it supports high transaction volumes even at a low rate, or because it has high costs to attack.

> The health of an economy is measured by how quickly money flows in it

Bitcoin isn't an economy. It is just a small part of the overall economy

link
vkou 1950 days ago
The cost to attack bitcoin is a lot lower than the cost to attack the euro, the usd, the yen, or even the rouble.

That's because you don't need a 50% attack to destroy bitcoin. You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.

link
shawnz 1950 days ago
> The cost to attack bitcoin is a lot lower than the cost to attack the euro, the usd, the yen, or even the rouble.

Those things should ought to have a much higher cost to attack since they hold significantly more value than Bitcoin currently.

> You just need the stroke of a pen, and it's price, and utility would collapse.

Then simply valuate it on what it will be worth in a post-regulation future rather than its current value. If you really believe that will happen, then it presents a great shorting opportunity for you and you would be helping to price in risks such as that.

link
vkou 1950 days ago
Market cap of the Ruble is 800 billion USD, market cap of BTC is currently 900 billion USD.

Depending on the kind of regulation, its value would either be roughly the same (if the regulation is of the KYC form), or would go into free-fall (if the regulation is of the 'this is illegal, starting 30 days from now').

But that's not my point. My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.

link
shawnz 1950 days ago
Well interestingly, the cost to maintain the Russian military is only about 10x higher than the cost to maintain Bitcoin (and obviously the Russian military is defending more than just the currency).

> My point is that the much touted BTC resilience to a 49% attack is a solution to a problem that nobody has.

If nobody has the problem, then nobody will buy it.

link