Folding Ideas' new (2 hour podcast-ish) video "The Problem With NFTs" is a really good critique of cryptocurrency: <a href="https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/YQ_xWvX1n9g</a><p>Covers pretty much every thought I've ever had regarding centralization, privacy issues, proof of work and proof of stake both rewarding the rich, economic incentives in speculative markets, NFT hucksterism — but with detailed research and examples of each. Some of the NFT security stuff is jaw-droppingly bad.
Great article, but as a dev working in the crypto sector, I can guarantee you that <i>many</i> people in the sector are strongly opposed to proof of work.<p>All these points are things I regularly bring up to bitcoin maxis. Usually they fall on deaf ears, but occasionally it does get through to people.<p>I think it's disingenuous to lump in all crypto with bitcoin however.
I'm getting the impression that many crypto bros, especially the influencers, have never written one line of code.<p>So it will probably not reach them anyways and everything will continue as is.<p>Also embarassing on HBR's part for having a blockchain investor write a piece on how blockchain is environmentally friendly.
I mean. It's like making an argument against cars, by attacking cars running on petrol and then generalising towards every single car having the same characteristics and environmental disadvantages as petrol cars.<p>I would have agreed if Bitcoin was THE only cryptocurrency. It is not, and there are many alternatives that are not Proof-of-Work; at least the top 10 cryptocurrencies even.
I see lots of positive articles about crypto when the price is headed upwards, and lots of negative articles when the price is on a downswing. It's almost as if even here on HN, the pump-n-dump crew is getting their say in...
> But mining and transactions are conflated here!<p>The author is right to point out the HBR author's conflict of interest, but there's a more direct rebuttal to this. One of the purported advantages of bitcoin is that transactions are (practically) irreversible. It's extremely expensive for a bad actor to reverse a transaction <i>because</i> the mining power of the network is subsidized by mining. Since the people making transactions are the ones directly benefiting from the power spent on mining, it is reasonable to look at the energy use on a per-transaction basis.
> If the global bitcoin network is not designed to cope with a miniscule fraction of the global payment volumes and doing so at massively higher energy costs, how could it ever scale to take over from centralised currencies? And if it cannot do that, then it’s only purpose is speculation and - based on its volatility - gambling.<p>yes it's a massive pyramid scheme waiting to collapse. all the working class folks who are miseducated and not able to see it for what it is in time will pay a very heavy cost when it does collapse.
I’ve made some edits to emphasise that I’m not against blockchain/crypto tech per se but that it’s the energy consumption of bitcoin in particular that concerns me. Thanks for all the feedback
>Over the last 12 years, it is hard to have lived and not notice the poster child of blockchains: Bitcoin<p>The funny thing is, it's actually pretty easy if you're not in the tech bubble. Despite the fact that the Bitcoin whitepaper carries the title <i>"Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"</i> I still have not paid for a single actual thing in my life with Bitcoin or crypto, neither has almost anyone else except for maybe heroin on the internet.<p>The transaction costs and the bizarre price swings from one day to the next render it entirely useless. If the central bank is too unreliable because inflation goes up to 7% over a year, what does that make bitcoin where one stupid tweet from Elon Musk at three in the morning wipes out 15% of your net worth or purchasing power.<p>When someone makes a crypto currency that I can get a paycheck in that's roughly worth the same thing at the end of the month as it was at the beginning, and I can pay for a coffee faster than with Venmo, Alipay, or cash consider me excited
That's very true, we must only rely on the Big Banks, they are resource free, green, love the planet and the poor people.<p>Another article full of complains but without any idea or solution.
In most cases monopoly is bad, but with minting currency there is some sense in which it is good for a seniorage rents to exist.<p>Imagine demand for holding USD grows by $20, a central bank can profit from the minting, e.g. if they make a $20 note for $.5 dollars.<p>With proof of work, miners have to burn $20 in electricity in expectation (more if the electricity is stolen or subsidised) otherwise someone can profitabily enter.<p>Even with proof of stake, an opportunity cost of $20 has to occur to the staker to prevent entry.