• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Bitcoin - Part 3

psionl0 said:
False equivalence. You are effectively saying that asbestos is harmful therefore bitcoin is harmful.
Click to expand...

And you were saying alcohol is hard to ban therefore Bitcoin is hard to ban. Another false equivalence.

By the way, we know that Bitcoin is harmful. Even if you ignore the social costs, the environmental costs show that it is harmful.
 
jeremyp said:
Another way to look at it is that they are preventing the people to whom you would otherwise sell the cryptocurrency from being scammed. Just because you got scammed doesn't give you the right to scam other people to make your losses good.
Click to expand...
Why do you use the word "scam"?

jeremyp said:
There's nothing anybody can do with crypto legally that they can't do more easily and more efficiently with money.
Click to expand...
Only an idiot or somebody so emotionally choked up that they can't think clearly would continue to say that in the face of what has been explained countless times cryptos can be used for.
 
psionl0 said:
Wow. This is the first time that somebody has ever pointed out that the originators and early adopters of bitcoin were psychic and KNEW that its price would take off.
Click to expand...
A conman doesn't know if his con will work. And a lot of the time it doesn't. But when it does he wins big. The best cons are the ones that people don't recognize as cons.

Bitcoin's creators weren't psychic, but they did promote it as the 'future of money'. Did they know for sure that it would take off? Of course not. But they hoped it would. And if they had any brains they would have known for sure what that meant.

But perhaps you are right. Perhaps 'Satoshi Nakamoto' was some kind of idiot savant who was a genius programmer but had no clue about how economies work. At best that makes him a dangerous idiot.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
A conman doesn't know if his con will work. And a lot of the time it doesn't. But when it does he wins big. The best cons are the ones that people don't recognize as cons.
Click to expand...
So when Satoshi Nakamoto sold his first batch of bitcoins he was only hoping that the price would go up?

Hang on! He didn't sell any. Another fairy tale shot down in flames!
 
psionl0 said:
Only an idiot or somebody so emotionally choked up that they can't think clearly would continue to say that in the face of what has been explained countless times cryptos can be used for.
Click to expand...

It does not matter how many arguments you try to make about what crypto technically, theoretically, COULD be used for.

The fact is, a decade after its introduction there is a fundamental disconnect between those fantasies however "technically" achievable, and the reality of what the crypto factually HAS BEEN and IS used for the vast overwhelming majority of that time: speculation, fraud, and confidence games.
 
The "portrait" orientation of my phone has been very useful for viewing Bitcoin market cap charts this week.

ETA: As I posted this, Bitcoin has fallen below 20k.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
It does not matter how many arguments you try to make about what crypto technically, theoretically, COULD be used for.
Click to expand...
It does. If it were not for the fact that wallet to wallet transfers can take place no matter the distance between the wallets nor the physical or geopolitical location of these wallets, there would be no utility (and therefore no value) for bitcoin.

Obviously only the illegitimate uses of cryptos are going get any publicity but if cryptos can nullify the political "war" on drugs then more power to them.
 
Last edited:
One thing's for certain regarding discussion of USD VS BTC illicit uses. Nobody ever rolled up a Bitcoin and snorted anything thru it. BTC has no drug residue. ;) (or viral cooties)
 
psionl0 said:
Why do you use the word "scam"?
Click to expand...
Because all you are selling, when you sell Bitcoin, is the possibility that the buyer will be able to sell it to somebody else later for even more money than you sold it. It's presented as an investment, but it's pure gambling.


Only an idiot or somebody so emotionally choked up that they can't think clearly would continue to say that in the face of what has been explained countless times cryptos can be used for.
Click to expand...

You seem strangely reluctant to give me any examples.

And note: I didn't ask what it can be used for: I asked what it can be used for that is legal and for which money is not a more convenient and more efficient alternative.

I suspect all the bluster and insults you are throwing around instead of answering my question are indicators that you have no answer.
 
psionl0 said:
It does. If it were not for the fact that wallet to wallet transfers can take place no matter the distance between the wallets nor the physical or geopolitical location of these wallets, there would be no utility (and therefore no value) for bitcoin.
Click to expand...

This is the 21st century, mate. I can transfer actual money to somebody else's bank account pretty much anywhere in the World (except Russia) practically instantaneously. Why do I need first to convert it into a cryptocurrency?
 
In fairness to Bitcoin, there is no corporate interference,never has been, never will be.
Bitcoin is independant of humanity.
 
Samson said:
In fairness to Bitcoin, there is no corporate interference,never has been, never will be.
Bitcoin is independant of humanity.
Click to expand...

Very poetic. Utter nonsense, of course, but it definitely could be part of a new crypto commercial.
 
psionl0 said:
False equivalence. You are effectively saying that asbestos is harmful therefore bitcoin is harmful.
Click to expand...

You miss the point entirely.

He is ACTUALLY, not effectively, pointing out that sometimes when you ban something harmful, people invested in it or employed by it may take a loss. That doesn't mean you should never ban something that anyone is invested in.
 
gnome said:
You miss the point entirely.

He is ACTUALLY, not effectively, pointing out that sometimes when you ban something harmful, people invested in it or employed by it may take a loss. That doesn't mean you should never ban something that anyone is invested in.
Click to expand...
Still a false equivalence. Bitcoin is not in the same category as slavery or asbestos. If you are going to control or ban something then you should have a good reason for it. Even then you should try to avoid declaring all out war.
 
psionl0 said:
Still a false equivalence. Bitcoin is not in the same category as slavery or asbestos. If you are going to control or ban something then you should have a good reason for it. Even then you should try to avoid declaring all out war.
Click to expand...

A good reason like profligate waste of electricity? Like using so much power that it's in a race with the Internet itself?

It's pretty ******* telling that you fail to address this every time it's brought up. One might suspect that it's because there is no reasonable answer to it. Each mined Bitcoin uses as much electricity as, what, 2-4 US households would use in a year?

But, sure, let's just keep going. What's the point of a death spiral if there aren't scumbags profiting along the way?
 
psionl0 said:
Still a false equivalence. Bitcoin is not in the same category as slavery or asbestos.
Click to expand...
Neither is it in the same category as alcohol or drugs. Quit accusing others of false equivalences.

If you are going to control or ban something then you should have a good reason for it. Even then you should try to avoid declaring all out war.
Click to expand...

We have good reasons for banning crypto currencies. They are good for nothing legal and they have a terrible impact on the environment. At least asbestos gave quite good protection against fire.
 
Babbylonian said:
A good reason like profligate waste of electricity? Like using so much power that it's in a race with the Internet itself?

It's pretty ******* telling that you fail to address this every time it's brought up. One might suspect that it's because there is no reasonable answer to it. Each mined Bitcoin uses as much electricity as, what, 2-4 US households would use in a year?

But, sure, let's just keep going. What's the point of a death spiral if there aren't scumbags profiting along the way?
Click to expand...

Waste not want not. 1 ounce of Gold reportedly requires 8.3 Terajoules of energy to mine. As of now that's $1,841 USD worth of Gold.

Let's convert 8.3 Terajoules into Kilowatt Hours:
Where 1 Terajoule is equal to 277,778 KWH,
8.3 Terajoules = 2,305,557 KWH

2,305,557 KWH to mine $1,841 USD worth of Gold. (Two million three hundred five thousand five hundred fifty-seven KWH.)


How many KWH to mine 1 Bitcoin? Reportedly it takes an average of 143,000 KWH to mine 1 Bitcoin. (One hundred and forty-three thousand KWH.)

Citation: https://minerdaily.com/2021/how-much-power-does-it-take-to-mine-a-bitcoin/

Bitcoin is at this moment is valued at $17,820 USD per Bitcoin.

What's worse for the environment mining Gold or mining Bitcoin? If one Bitcoin is worth approximately 10 ounces of Gold, let do the math.

10 ounces of Gold at 2,305,557 KWH per ounce to mine = 23,055,570 KWH (Twenty-three million, fifty-five thousand, five hundred seventy KWH.)

Gold requires 23,055,570 KWH and approximately the same value amount in Bitcoin requires 143,000 KWH.

Gold is MUCH worse for the environment as it requires exponentially more energy to produce than Bitcoin. Let's get rid of that nasty Environment killing Gold.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom