Yes, I know that it still exist, and yes, decentralized currency which utilizes distributed, cryptographic validation is not actually a strictly bad idea, but…

Is the speculative investment scam, which crypto substantially represented, finally dead? Can we go back to buying gold bars and Pokemon cards?

I feel like it is, but I’m having a hard time putting my finger on why it lost its sheen. Maybe crypto scammers moved on to selling LLM “prompts?” Maybe the rug just got pulled enough times that everyone lost trust.

  • knokelmaat@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Bitcoin (as it uses proof of work) is incapable of handling all transaction of the world without creating insane amounts of wasted energy.

    Updating the ledger (actually writing down transactions) is only a fraction of the total computing resources it consumes. Most of it is just spent doing random hashes over and over again (the proof of work part). This is computing power that does not actually do any of the money related tasks, it’s just there to keep the ledger trusted.

    This is an awesome idea in theory, but completely unscalable in reality.

    Other Blockchain technologies like proof of stake don’t have this issue of energy waste, but they have other hurdles.

    But Bitcoin as it is implemented now can never be the money of the future in my opinion.

    • lightrush@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Trust is one of the most fundamental parts of any monetary system, so brute forcing hashes in this case is directly related to it.

      Bitcoin can easily serve the world on 100 Mac Minis. Probably even fewer. The fact that currently people beat themselves into burning ridiculous amounts of electricity to run Bitcoin nodes is a function of the profitability of doing that. If that profitability decreases, so will the electricity burned. If I remember correctly, the protocol is designed to reduce that reward over time and unless the dollar value of Bitcoin dramatically increases, the energy waste should decrease long term.

      A secondary point on energy consumption is how that of Bitcoin compares to the traditional financial transaction systems. I don’t have the numbers at the moment but last time I checked it wasn’t pretty for the latter.

      With all that said, if PoS is proven to be as hack-resistant as PoW, it should probably be adopted and it absolutely can be for systems currently on PoW.

      • xthexder@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I think you’re missing a critical part of how blockchains function: If Bitcoin was running on only 100 Mac Minis, there is nothing stopping someone buying 101 more Mac Minis, becoming dominant in the network and suddenly they can decide to just print their own bitcoins for themself.

        The profitability of running Bitcoin miners is proportional to the market cap and the value of Bitcoin itself. For Bitcoin to remain stable, the total value must remain less than the cost of hardware to dominate the consensus algorithm.

          • Blake [he/him]@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Bitcoin miners validate transactions on the network, so if one entity controls a majority of all miners, they can validate their own fraudulent transactions

    • Haakon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I don’t know if you’ve heard about Lightning Network, but this is a layer on top of the bitcoin blockchain that is much more suitable for small payments. That’s how I do most of my bitcoin payments now, and while it’s still a maturing technology, it mostly works well. Transactions are fast and inexpensive.