[survirtual]

First paragraph is on point. Sad about the second paragraph. That isn't a brave or impressive thing to say, it is a common and misinformed perspective.

Regarding Bitcoin, it's important to recognize that it's fundamentally about decentralization of financial control, not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too). It uses a distributed ledger technology, where the minting process (mining) and transfers (transactions) are verified by a consensus mechanism across a global network. This eliminates the need for central banking authorities, theoretically reducing the points of failure and censorship. It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems, with a predictable supply that's governed by math, not by policy changes. While concerns about energy consumption are valid, the network is increasingly moving towards renewable energy sources and more efficient mining practices. Moreover, innovations like the Lightning Network are addressing scalability and resource issues, aiming to make Bitcoin more sustainable and accessible.

I think you should revisit your talking points / read the code / understand the thing you're talking about before having such a strong (false) statement.

[tromp]

> not necessarily decentralizing value hoarding (though it largely does that too)

I could have agreed with that if it had a fixed block subsidy. Not with the repeated halving that leaves each next generation with 32x less bitcoin to mine.

[warkdarrior]

> Regarding Bitcoin [...] the network is increasingly moving [...] more efficient mining practices

Has Bitcoin changed its mining protocol?

[tromp]

It is and always will be Hashcash with SHA256d as hash function.

[absinthe11]

That's an example of sunk cost fallacy, where the miners have spent so much money (real dollars, not bitcoin) on otherwise useless ASICs that they obstruct any attempts at progress.

[CyberDildonics]

That's not a sunk cost fallacy, that's just sunk cost.

[GabeIsko]

> It's designed to be a deflationary currency to counteract inflationary fiat systems,

Even if you take this conceit, we have to step back that bitcoin has irrevocably failed. Governments have definitely proved that they can regulate bitcoin transactions through various mechanisms. In China, mining is banned. In US, they are considered securities and regulated. No use case has emerged to truly transact in bitcoin. The only deflationary aspect is it's value in relation to fiat currency, which is still downstream to the supply of money controlled by central banks.

Personally, I don't think bitcoin is viable. The root of the problem is that no one is willing to transact in it. But beyond that, looking at it's implementation, I am not convinced that it accurately models the relationship between demand for the currency and the people willing to mine it. It seems very dogmatic to assume that it is just a logarithmic relationship between computing power and money supply. At the end of the day, there might not be a more efficient solution to establish demand for money than some kind of political process.