[mpyne]

"Efficiency" is not the thing Bitcoin is going to hang it hat on...

Though yes, I'll grant you that Bitcoin certainly makes it easier to avoid financial regulations. So the next time I have to buy rocket launchers or chemical weapons I guess I'll keep it in mind, even if it does mean I have to be careful to avoid the next exit scam.

[brighton36]

Bitcoin is economically efficient for some markets, as is evidenced by its continued and growing use in those markets. If there were something more efficient to service these markets, that would be used instead. I doubt the market for weapons is terribly large in Bitcoin, but I'm sure you'll find some. The market for drugs however, is booming. As for exit scams, I'm sure you'll see decentralized alternatives to central stores at some point, which will remove that risk.

While most Bitcoiners are completely absurd idealists, You should consider that you are also a bit absurdly denialist on the subject. Money is a religion, it tends to bring out that behavior in people.

[mpyne]

> You should consider that you are also a bit absurdly denialist on the subject.

If we were talking about anything other than the bubble sort of online transactions it would be a different story. It is inherently less efficient than basically any other way you could think to do this, and why?

So that only the algorithm can ever change the money supply, not the spooky and scary "central bankers" somewhere. Never mind that they can't change money supply at a whim either...

But in the meantime a bunch of amateur economists get to rediscover all the problems of running an economy without regulations. Sorry For Your Loss, and all. And then all their defenders invariably go, "It's in the Wiki™" or, "It's just a beta, it'll be better in the future!!1".

And your reply about decentralized alternatives shows you simply don't understand what you're talking about here. Why did Silk Road ever get popular in the first place? Because you could trust it, something you can't do as easily with decentralized schemes. Brand names have value on a balance sheet for a reason.

If anything decentralized markets would be even more likely to involve exit scams—it's just the scale of the "Sorry For Your Loss" would be less.

But yes, let's continue to pump out $8-$10 worth of electricity for each and every single Bitcoin transaction made... having the freedom to be scammed in a deflationary economy is surely worth the climate impact, no?

[brighton36]

It seems that your criticism is (justly) geared towards Bitcoiners, more so than Bitcoin. You should consider that extreme views on either side of this debate are absurd. Fortunately for all involved, Wall Street 'grown-ups' are moving into the space to apply a more mature and sustainable approach to the field. You will quickly see the Libertarians and 16-year-olds drowned by their peers as a result.

Regarding decentralized markets - you clearly have no substantial background in the space. They would be decentralized by escrowing value in the blockchain, instead of in the custody of a site operator. If Silk Road were a brand name, dark markets would be dead. I have no idea what dark markets are popular right now, but clearly they are popular : http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/daily-c...

Ahh, so the environmental cost of mining is what's got you bugged. That cost is borne by all actors involved in the system. They have every right to burn their energy, just like you do. But more specifically to your point, how much energy do the incumbent finance systems burn? If it's a drug-market transaction - it would be way over $8-$10 per transaction in terms of incarceration costs, import costs, etc.

If lightning network scales, that same $8-10 now secures the 4,000 TPS that your credit card system processes. And probably that $8-$10 is far more economical than the energy being burned by incumbent value routing systems.

Your brand of denialism is extreme. While it's certainly not entirely uncommon it's rapidly diminishing. Yours is a dying breed.