- Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, does not believe in cryptocurrencies, calling them a vehicle for scams and a Ponzi scheme.
- Torvalds was once rumored to be Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto, but he clarified it was a joke and denied owning a Bitcoin fortune.
- Torvalds also dismissed the idea of technological singularity as a bedtime story for children, saying continuous exponential growth does not make sense.
You could very well make the argument that ultimately crypto is backed by energy, which is something we all agree has value. Without energy, you can’t go to work, heat or cool your house or anything like that. If you believe that electricity is fundamental for society, then by extension, crypto is backed by the most fundamental force that there is even bigger than a government.
Hard disagree here, I literally cannot access a cryptocurrency without power but I can absolutely pay cash to buy some water during a power outage.
Sure you can. There’s absolutely nothing stopping somebody from putting a private key on a piece of paper and loading money onto it and spending it physically as long as the private key has not been exposed. Kind of like those Amazon scratch-off gift cards. And just to prove my point, take a look at this.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Casascius_physical_bitcoins
Yes I’m sure the 7-11 cashier would love for me to try this.
Depends on who the 7-11 cashier is. If they are really smart, they would gladly take your crypto and pay for your items with their fiat. You are not going to get big places using it first. You are going to get little places using it first. The Amazon’s and 7-11’s and Walmart’s of the world will come later. And trust me, they will come. There’s a natural tipping point apparently, where when 5% of the world population uses something, the other 95% generally soon follow, because it’s more useful. Crypto has already hit that 5% mark.
Any day now bruh, trust me
But it’s not backed by energy.
The energy was consumed in the process of creating the crypto, that energy no longer exists and since it doesn’t exist it can’t back anything.
Isn’t there a person that famously said something to the effect of energy is neither created nor destroyed, only modified? I want to say it was like Isaac Newton or something. Some big name anyway. So you’re not destroying the energy. You’re changing the energy into heat, which during the winter can heat your home as a subsidy to your furnace, and you are turning it into a digital representation that you can take and spend anywhere in the world.
Still not describing anything that indicates it backs it.
Good news though, I did reply again so feel free to condescendingly demonstrate your intelligence again.
I get you’re desperately trying to sound smart, but in this context, “energy” meant electricity. Because that’s what it takes to produce cryptocurrency. Not the general definition in the realm of physics study. And electricity can most certainly be created and destroyed.
When you buy gold, you have the gold. It’s backed by the thing you have.
When you buy cryptocurrency, you don’t have the electricity that was spent in fabricating those numbers. You don’t get sent a battery in the post. You have nothing.
So if I have nothing, why are people willing to give me things for it?
Again trying to sound smart. You have nothing tangible. You have numbers on a screen, and for some people that’s enough to throw money at.
Nice attempt at moving the goalposts, btw.
Mind telling me what most people use on a daily basis because numbers on the screen seems pretty common.
Their local currency. You know, that thing we were talking about? If you’ve forgotten you could’ve just scrolled up for a quick refresher.
Yes, but how do they interact with their local currency? Do they hold it in their hands? No, they don’t. It’s all numbers on a screen.
In this case the heat is something data centers spend even more energy and water on to dispose of
Which is why Monero’s proof of work algorithm ends up being better than Bitcoin. Because for a data center with tons of computers, it makes more financial sense to do something else with the machines rather than mine. But for a home user, it makes tons of sense to mine and get the heat to subsidize their electricity bill during the winter.
Except that’s not what “backed by” means. It consumes energy. You can never exchange cryptocurrency to get the energy that it consumed back.
Have you tried running a cryptocurrency miner during the dead of winter? It makes your electricity bills quite a bit lower. That’s for certain.
Crypto is just evidence energy was used. It’s not stored energy.
Oh, but it is, because you could exchange it for something else. As an example, I can take mine and go exchange it for groceries.
You can also use it to… pay for that energy you just used… Hooray!! /s
I’ve recently been hearing a lot about mining, consuming energy that either would not exist otherwise, or would be wasted. For example, places in Africa can build like a hydroelectric power station, but don’t have the money to run lines far enough for all the energy from the power station to be used, so they give most of it to a crypto mine and let the residents use the rest. If the residents ever need more power, then the crypto mine can shut down temporarily or slack off on their usage in order to provide the residents with more power.
You know what else they could do? Store it… in batteries… which are reliable for long term storage… and aren’t nearly as volatile… and use it on stuff that generates more value per watt consumed… For example, batteries can be used to power homes and businesses, which can help to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and improve air quality, improving quality of life which generates a shit load of value. Batteries can also be used to provide backup power in case of a blackout, which can be essential for critical infrastructure such as hospitals and data centers.
Also consider that many peoples (me) would like to move from the older cryptocurrencies that needs lots of power to run (proof of work) and try to advocate for newer proof of stake models.
To my understanding proof of stake models have dramatically lower power requirements.
Yes, but they are also quite a bit easier to take over and destroy because governments can just print their fiat and buy up a large amount of that currency and then kill the network.
I haven’t seen an exchange where I can trade in Crypto for kilowatt-hours.
Coinsbee.com allows you to purchase debit cards, which you can then use to purchase kilowatt hours.
Translation: actual currencies can be used to purchase energy, but cryptocurrency cannot.
What you’re saying is precisely like saying “I know a guy that trades turnips for money. Therefore turnips are a great currency that you can buy anything with.”
Thank you Nagus for your financial insights.
The only currency I give a damn about is gold-pressed latinum, damn it!
Sure, you can’t buy energy with crypto directly yet. But that would make total sense for a power company to accept crypto in the future.
If it made sense they’d be doing it, no?
Not yet, the government has their regulatory screws too deep into them, so they can’t innovate like that.
Where are these laws that state energy companies cannot accept crypto as payment?
I don’t know of any laws specifically against them accepting it, but I think it’s probably demand-based because only about one-fourth to one-fifth of US citizens use crypto currently. I think that number will grow over the years.