• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Bitcoin

Gimmesometruth said:
I'm still trying to make sense of the concept of how a thing gains value because of the electricity that was spent in creating a long string of numbers. These strings have no value, they are just electricity receipts for doing nothing more than having a videocard go brrrrrrrrrrrr.

The idea that this is such a worthy cause as to devote "green energy" to is beyond absurd.
Click to expand...
I am glad to offer some insight. It's a deep subject that crosses SEVERAL disciplines in computer science, cryptography, and game theory to name a few. Over time one begins to understand why there is value in "burning this energy for nothing"... A misunderstanding in the first place. Here's why:

Bitcoin's energy use is called "Proof of Work". And that energy use is at the base of what secures the Bitcoin network. But by far the most important part is it is a provable and observable way to know that when a miner adds more information to Bitcoin's blockchain that it is legitimate. The miner cannot just make up the fact that they went to trouble to solve a difficult math problem.

This energy use allows actors across the entire globe to agree on a single set of facts (the blockchain) despite the reality they are incentivized to cheat. (See John Nash's concept of non cooperative game theory) If someone could make bitcoin, or charge transaction fees WITHOUT doing the work... AND proving they did then they most certainly would. And this would instantly undermine the security of the network and would remove the foundation for Bitcoin having a monetary value in the first place.

The energy use is THE most simple and straightforward way to create this barrier.

It is counterintuitive, but consider this. Gold is just the same. It is valuable because it is extremely hard to produce. And it cannot be just created out of nothing... or some other metal (well... ermm... there is THIS recent development).

Gold's Proof of Work is exploration, digging giant holes, hauling away tons and tons of earth, sorting out the ore, refining it, smelting it, forming it into bars (etc), and THEN there is transport, security, the defense of something like Ft Knox, etc.

A TREMENDOUS amount of energy goes into mining and producing gold. And it leaves a net negative impact on the environment. And even after we have pure gold we have to continue to spend an ongoing amount of energy in the form of resources and human labor to protect, move, store etc. the shiny yellow element.

Bitcoin boils that ALL down to pure energy use, and achieves a superior result in many regards. Bitcoin is easier to transport, divide, store, etc.

And... you mention wasting green energy. Bitcoin incentivizes the use of stranded energy, AND the development of green energy. I will outline 3 examples.

1. Oil production inevitably also produces natural gas. This can be sold and used as well if the wells are close enough to human populations. But in most locations it is simply flared. This is better than just releasing it unburned into the atmosphere (MUCH MUCH better) but still polluting. Compact bitcoin mining stations however can burn the gas in ways that pollute less BUT also produce a useful asset.

2. Bitcoin can be the "buyer of last resort". One problem with renewables is the fact they are intermitant. AND demand also fluctuates. And the two can be out of sync as well. This makes building a lot of kinds of reneweables financially unfeasible. BUT if you can park a Bitcoin mine next to the energy source then in times the energy would be wasted the mine can run, and produce income. Then when the big city down the lines needs more energy (like in a TX ice storm) then we can turn off all the miners and point all we got at the grid. THIS allows us to build solar and wind we could not otherwise!

3. Finally imagine an area in an undeveloped nation. There is a massive oppourtunity for hydroelectric plants near a warterfall on a river the villages surround. And the villages would GREATLY benefit from having electricity. But they are poor. And therefore the extremly expensive endeavor of building a dam would not pay off in a timeframe that would make it worth doing. Alright... build the dam AND a bitcoin mine. And start making value immeadiately. Build the beginnings of the infra to the villages, and as they increase their electrical use, they will also increase their productivity, and will be able to afford more power, and infrastructure etc... all the while Bitcoin is filling in the gaps and making the project possible in the first place. A virtuous cycle.

There is so much more we could talk about... but maybe that is already a bit much. ;)
 
Last edited:
cAPSLOCK said:
So will Bitcoin's value since it is based on that [increasing energy costs]. The basic of the Bitcoin price is it's value at the margins of production. As time goes on this will continue to rise parabiolically.
Click to expand...

The positive correlation to energy costs isn't logical. A higher cost of production just makes Bitcoin less attractive to mine/maintain. Like oil, if the price of Bitcoin drops below the cost to mine it, mining will stop. Also, the more it is mined, the less that commodity will be worth.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The positive correlation to energy costs isn't logical. A higher cost of production just makes Bitcoin less attractive to mine/maintain. Like oil, if the price of Bitcoin drops below the cost to mine it, mining will stop. Also, the more it is mined, the less that commodity will be worth.
Click to expand...

This is ignoring the monetary value. Otherwise we would stop mining gold too. At least at a cost of about $300-400 an ounce which is the current estimation of it's industrial value. And we do stop when the gains from mining it becomes smaller than the COST of mining it.

So the price of Bitcoin, as well as the cost of mining it become the determining factors here.
 
Last edited:
cAPSLOCK said:
This is ignoring the monetary value. Otherwise we would stop mining gold too. At least at a cost of about $300-400 an ounce which is the usual estimation of it's industrial value. And we do stop when the gains from mining it becomes smaller than the COST of mining it.

So the price of Bitcoin, as well as the cost of mining it become the determining factors here.
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore the price of Bitcoin, I just commented because the original quote made it sound like the price of Bitcoin went up as electricity costs went up, which made no sense.

As always, the price is determined by the market. Only miners care about the cost of electricity, I would think.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
I didn't ignore the price of Bitcoin, I just commented because the original quote made it sound like the price of Bitcoin went up as electricity costs went up, which made no sense.

As always, the price is determined by the market. Only miners care about the cost of electricity, I would think.
Click to expand...
I said "Monetary value" and should have said "monetary premium" technically... though the general idea is the same. Which in the case of bitcoin IS the price... so you are right. But the reason for the distinction is gold has some value aside from the monetary premium.

And I agree miners only care about the cost of electricity... but consider their position.

If Bitcoin is costing more to produce than it is to sell, then they can do one of two things:

1. They can turn off mining hardware. This will save them money. But it will then making mining that much more profitable for the miners who are running a tighter ship. Those miners will then become more profitable. And the miners who had to shut off their hardware will either catch up, or sell out.

2. The miners can choose to keep mining in spite of doing it at a loss. Or find some middle ground where they turn off their less efficient miners and continue with the rest. And then gamble that the BTC they mine will be more valuable in the future... which it always has been so far.

Either one of these scenarios is healthy for the network. It prunes the dead branches, and dampens the (famous) volatility.

Now. This is a pure model of a more complex issue. There are what the buyers think the value to be... which can change based on many other macroeconomic factors. Particularly when the buyers are not just nerds in their basements. But are nation states, and corporations.

And again this is a reason why PoW is so powerful. It can self correct with MUCH more agility when something like gold is quite the complex situation... big machines, factories payrolls that have to be enlarged, then shrunk etc.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
The positive correlation to energy costs isn't logical. A higher cost of production just makes Bitcoin less attractive to mine/maintain. Like oil, if the price of Bitcoin drops below the cost to mine it, mining will stop. Also, the more it is mined, the less that commodity will be worth.
Click to expand...
If she wants me to buy Bitcoin, im a buyer.

 
ldub23 said:
If she wants me to buy Bitcoin, im a buyer.

Click to expand...

Every bitcoin cycle. Somewhere near the top... People start coming out of the woodwork saying this exact thing. "This time it's going to be different." And I would love it if it was, and actually think there is some reasonable chance that it could be a little different this time.

But it probably won't.

If people aren't prepared for a very large pullback, they're liable to be very disappointed.

My bet is we'll probably see one more thrust upwards. It could be magnificent and then some horrible piece of news will drive prices down by at least 50% over a fairly short amount of time. But we'll see.
 
cAPSLOCK said:
I don't see with Bitcoin's properties how this is true.

Why would Bitcoin be worth less if it was mined more?
Click to expand...

Because that's generally true of any commodity.

Yes, Bitcoin is a different type of commodity, but it's still a commodity. Just one that has a very unpredictable market.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Because that's generally true of any commodity.

Yes, Bitcoin is a different type of commodity, but it's still a commodity. Just one that has a very unpredictable market.
Click to expand...
Well... I suppose what I am asking is WHY does more mining = lower price.

Is it because if we increase the supply side it follows that greater supply drops the price? Ex. Gold price rises. Barrack mining brings dormant mines back online since now they are more profitable. Therefore gold price drops?
 
Another new all-time high.

$116100 as I type.

Personally, I think there's a small chance we won't see the typical 60 to 80% dump during this cycle. I do think we will see a bear market coming soon, if not now, then after this last blow-off.

I do think it's likely we see one more surge in price before something monumental happens like one of the "Bitcoin treasury companies" implodes or there's a hack at some large custodian.

I want to be clear, those things are paper Bitcoin, so are the ETFs. I'm not saying they're bad, I'm just saying they're vulnerable, and they're inside the old system. Actually, I am saying they're bad. If you don't hold your own Bitcoin, then anyone can take it away from you. Exposure via the ETF has advantages too, but comes at a price. You should just be aware of what that price is.

Also, it's very common when discussing this to get the old El Salvador angle. People can talk how it's been so bad for them and they've lost so much because of it.

Visbek said:
By the way, guess which dictatorship tried to move everyone over to Bitcoin? El Salvador. (It failed, by the way)
Click to expand...

Here you go.

1000000185.webp

And increasing numbers are using it for commerce as well. It takes a while to move into something so novel is this. But they are the hotbed. Tether is talking about moving there.

So, for what it's worth talking about price in US dollars, which is fleeting and silly, I expect we should see Bitcoin to go up at least another 20,000 if not double from where it is right now. Then the question is, do we see another massive pullback, 80% style like in the past? Or is it muted somewhat by the greater incoming liquidity? I think something in the latter is more likely.

Also, for anyone who's interested, I don't trade this asset. I've collected some, but I almost never sell it. So no taxable events here, for me, just savings. Maybe some day.. I'll use it to buy a house somewhere or something. If I'm lucky.
 
Its going to keep going up.

 
One thing different this cycle is the availability of ETFs. A lot of new investers due to their availability. I would have never bought into bitcoin without an ETF.

I bought IBIT at 27.53 in early Feb 2024. It is at 66.88 today. Too bad I only bought about 20k.

Will the ETFs limit any potential drop or will it magnify a bear market.
 
Sooner or Later said:
One thing different this cycle is the availability of ETFs. A lot of new investers due to their availability. I would have never bought into bitcoin without an ETF.

I bought IBIT at 27.53 in early Feb 2024. It is at 66.88 today. Too bad I only bought about 20k.

Will the ETFs limit any potential drop or will it magnify a bear market.
Click to expand...

I wrote a Tome... lol. But it was too long. Here is a summary:

ETFs impact BTC in complex ways. Bullishly, they offer institutional exposure, legitimization, and increased liquidity, reducing volatility. IBIT's success is notable. However, bearish scenarios include panic among new investors during drawdowns, potentially triggering significant market drops.

The market is now dominated by professional traders, with OTC trades and derivatives playing a role. Centralization of BTC and custodial risks are concerns. Additionally, there's a conspiracy theory angle, with central banks potentially seeing ETFs as a tool to control or destroy Bitcoin. In the long run, holding your own Bitcoin is advised to avoid systemic risks.

The success of Blackrock's IBIT product is unprecedented... for the company who is basically the inventor of ETFs...

But I would only hold real Bitcoin in cold storage to reduce the significant counter party risk.
1752264034633.webp
 
Also I would ignore scantily clad women coaxing you into telegram chats and offering "crypto" advice.

In fact avoid "crypto" too. Stick with BTC IMHO.
 
$120K bitcoin, now. Been slowly selling ever since it hit $108K, but only about 5% sold so far. Will accelerate selling if Ethereum and alts take off.
 
We will now see what the Western hemisphere thinks of last night's action. RSI is hot on most time-frames. Some cooling off makes sense. But Bitcoin can surprise and does not always follow the "rules".
 
If you invest in crypto, you're either the grifter or the grifted.
 
Dans La Lune said:
If you invest in crypto, you're either the grifter or the grifted.
Click to expand...
With respect, we, meaning you and I, need to change our language to better articulate what's really going on.

Bitcoin is not investing, it is speculation pure and simple. It is a large pool of tokens that people buy and sell, all hoping to make money on something that, in essence, has no real objective value and unlike government currency, it's value is entirely market driven, which some would insist is a feature, but then fail to understand how BTC as a currency, given it's wild volatility, would result in drastic market shifts and instability that would cripple the economy (likely contributing to a new Robber Baron Era). It's not produced relative to anything real and holding them is the promise of nothing.

Grifters and grifted is another way to say for every speculator who wins there is a loser. It is a market that favors institutional investors who are leaching money away from small time investors. I'd bet that 1/2 the people here who claim big wins in crypto are too embarrassed to disclose their huge losses. It's like the person who bets on horses or plays slots, they'll brag about the $6,000 they won last night on a bet, but ignore the $200k in total losses.

Economies cannot exist on speculation. Money pursuing money and not real output will inevitably lead to failure and speculative products like BTC are hastening the nations demise. Only real investment in real people and useful research that strengthens the nations position in the global community will ensure the US is as strong at the end of the century as it was when it began.

The US is failing and has been over the last 40 years because it's people are driven by the wrong incentives, make heroes of the wrong people and value te wrong things and while a tiny minority of the country is doing better than 99.999% of everyone else in the world, they are contributing to the outright decline of the US as a nation. As a culture we've lost our way, we lack purpose and have turned on each other.


To be clear, to anyone who reads this, the difference between investing and speculation:
  • Investment: Allocating money with the expectation of generating a return over a long-term horizon, often based on fundamental analysis of an asset's underlying value. It generally involves a more measured approach to risk.
  • Speculation: Engaging in high-risk financial transactions with the aim of profiting from short-term price fluctuations, often with less emphasis on the underlying asset's fundamentals and a greater tolerance for potential significant losses.


Having said that, the US still has all the tools to turn things around, but those that control money control politics and are more concerned about their gains then they are in their fellow countryman and represent the the obstacle to the US living up to its potential.

/soap box...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom