Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Orange

New Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Orange

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My point was bitcoin would use as much power as the entire United States economy! Not just the amount used for finance!
  2. At $1m per coind, miners would be rewarded to the tune of $657bn annually and could consume 1.2 terawatts of electricity; more than the entire United States' current demand.
  3. On this I agree; Bitcoin is riding a wave of ignorance that will eventually run out of fools.
  4. A system that can process 4 transactions a second while consuming an entire nuclear power station's worth of electricity at a cost of $60 per transaction; that's the amount miners get paid per transaction, ie annualised mining revenues divided by the number of transactions.
  5. The issue isn't people being compensated for the wealth they create, it is the monopoly rents levied on the rest of the economy by the owners of Bitcoin - it is identical to the monopoly rents of landlords. The lasting effects of Bitcoin are: Billions of dollars spent on mining equipment & electricity Redistribution and concentration of wealth Given that the money spent in 1. has not created wealth, Bitcoin can be seen to be a negative sum game; a net destroyer of wealth.
  6. Where are these capital gains coming from? Other people's work. Negatively, but not nearly as negatively as the wealth of the neo-Feudal Bitlord class would. As for Venezuela, in no way is hyperinflation a justification for hyperdeflation; that's replacing one tyranny with another.
  7. Isn't this the definition of rent collection? Why are you entitled to claim a share of economic growth without contributing to it?
  8. Would lending out your Bitcoin at interest not count as collecting rent? I'm trying to understand how the redistribution of wealth to Bitcoin owners can be ethical when redistribution of wealth towards landlords is not. It appears to be a land grab akin to the inclosure acts; enrichment of those who were fortunate enough to get there first.
  9. Does anyone else think Bitcoin is comparable to the hoarding of land and property so complained about on this forum? It's monopolisation of a fundamental public utility - in this case money. Nearly 80% of all Bitcoins that can ever exist have been mined and their ownership is even more concentrated than our current distribution of land and property. Consider the implications if Bitcoin really did displace existing currencies and have spending power in the trillions, all controlled by that tiny elite; it would be a return to feudal levels of inequality. This is precisely the trickle down argument made by landlords! I suggest that rather than redistributing their wealth our Bitlords would turn to usury; lending out their Bitcoins to the peasants at interest that can only be repaid with ever increasing debt - sound familiar? The environmental impact of Bitcoin has been touched on but I'll reiterate it; were Bitcoin to 'succeed' it would cause an environmental catastrophe. The current mining rate is fixed at 1800 coins per day for another 2.5 years, worth some $6.57bn annually at the current Bitcoin price; as Bitcoin mining is competitive the vast majority of that sum will be spent on mining hardware and electricity. Now imagine the price of Bitcoins continues to go up exponentially; we would be spending hundreds of billions on bitcoin miners & electricity! I suspect that this will go down as one of the great bubbles of history - if I only I could figure out when it will burst
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.