> It's like saying if rubies are the same as emeralds, then we don't need rubies.
If rubies didn't exist and somebody were setting out to invent them at the cost of major ecological harm plus enormous waste and collateral damage to financial novices then that would be a decent comparison. Except that rubies have intrinsic value, whereas Bitcoin doesn't, making it a yet worse analogy.
> different but [...] still being "the same"
I am going to take this as an exercise in aggressive point-missing on your part. If you still don't get the point, feel free to ask.
> Bitcoin is absolutely valueless
I didn't say Bitcoin was valueless. Again, you seem to be aggressively missing the point.
> BNY Mellon and BlackRock
That's not proof of value. Traders will trade anything with enough volatility, because that's how they make money. Making money is frequently distinct from creating value. I'm speaking specifically of value, which again, Bitcoin has not demonstrated net value creation, especially when compared with other things that started at the same time, and especially when there's a full accounting of costs.
"Around 60% to 70% of bitcoin is currently mined in China, where more than two-thirds of electricity generation comes from coal. But bitcoin mining facilities are concentrated in remote areas of China with rich hydro or wind resources (cheap electricity), with about 80% of Chinese bitcoin mining occurring in hydro-rich Sichuan province. These mining facilities may be absorbing overcapacity in some of these regions, using renewable energy that would otherwise be unused, given difficulties in matching these rich wind and hydro resources with demand centres on the coast."
"Electricity generation in other key bitcoin mining centres are also dominated by renewables, including Iceland (100%), Quebec (99.8%), British Columbia (98.4%), Norway (98%), and Georgia (81%). Globally, one analysis estimates that the bitcoin is powered by at least 74% renewable electricity as of June 2019. Another analysis of data from 93 mining facilities (representing 1.7 GW, or about a third of global mining capacity) estimates that 76% of the identified energy mix includes renewables."
"Furthermore, we show that Bitcoin mining is mainly located in global regions where there are ample supplies of renewable electricity available. And finally, we calculate an estimate of the renewables penetration in the energy mix powering the Bitcoin mining network at 73%, making Bitcoin mining more renewables-driven than almost every other large-scale industry in the world. Our renewables estimate has marginally dropped since our last report, reflecting increased levels of mining in low-renewables regions such as Kazakhstan. However, we still caution that our location estimates likely have error margins of ±5% and should be considered within that context."
Of the BTC mining that isn't on renewables, it would be interesting to see how the net CO2 output compares to diamond/gold/ruby mining, not to mention the labor exploitation.
> Except that rubies have intrinsic value, whereas Bitcoin doesn't, making it a yet worse analogy.
What intrinsic value do rubies have? They're just used for jewelry. It doesn't really "do" anything. Bitcoin is the same. It doesn't "do" anything, and its value is subjectively derived by the people that use/hold it. Much like jewelry, when it's not being used as a store of value, it serves a somewhat superficial use case, and that's censorship resistant transaction.
> I am going to take this as an exercise in aggressive point-missing on your part. If you still don't get the point, feel free to ask.
> I didn't say Bitcoin was valueless. Again, you seem to be aggressively missing the point.
You'll have to help me out here, because whatever point you think you're making simply isn't coming across. You just said "Except that rubies have intrinsic value, whereas Bitcoin doesn't...", while also saying "I didn't say Bitcoin was valueless". It's hard to follow.
> That's not proof of value.
My point about BNY Mellon, BlackRock, Square, Tesla, Canada, etc was meant to be in response to your claim that Bitcoin use is "shrinking". The entire argument here is that Bitcoin is (among many things) a store of value. Its worth as a store of value is entirely predicated on whether others think that it's a store of value. The fact that institutional investors are also beginning to treat it as a store of value suggests that it might not be "shrinking", per your conclusion.
> I'm speaking specifically of value, which again, Bitcoin has not demonstrated net value creation
Calculating "net" value creation is debatable, because different people have a different point of view on how to measure the cost (eg how "bad" the electricity usage is). But, we can talk about the output: and that it has provided an easy-to-use store of value, comparable to gold, which can be used as a hedge against fiat currency. It's being used in regimes with poor monetary policy:
You, personally, may not see any value in that, and that's fine! But we go back to the Diamond-water paradox; you probably derive more use from a glass of water (or an Android phone, to your earlier point) than Bitcoin, but utility alone doesn't determine the price/value of the thing.
Large-scale hydro is major ecological harm. And even for something less damaging, that's still massive energy use that could be used for something else. Bitcoin is displacing other activity.
I don't get the impression that you understand value at all, except as a stick to beat people with in arguments. Given the volume, glibness, and excess confidence with which you write, trying to argue you into understanding it doesn't seem like a good use of my time, especially given your tendency to treat your personal feelings as objective fact. If you actually aim to learn, you could start with the Lean look at value; they write some pretty accessible stuff. But I'm done here.
Please don't do this sort of tit-for-tat flamewar on HN. I know it's extremely difficult not to get sucked in (believe me, I know), but when the comments get to this stage, the path of curious conversation was abandoned a long time ago. We're trying for something else here.
I'll step over and forgive the personal attacks because I'd like to think that I've refrained from doing the same with you.
> Large-scale hydro is major ecological harm. And even for something less damaging, that's still massive energy use that could be used for something else. Bitcoin is displacing other activity.
Sure, but you or I don't get to decide how people spend their time, or where they focus their activities. And you also didn't address the fact that this needs to be compared, apples-to-apples, with the mining of conceptually similar assets like diamonds, rubies, gold, etc.
> especially given your tendency to treat your personal feelings as objective fact.
Actually I'm arguing the exact opposite; that value is purely subjective. Just like you, I myself don't derive much value in Bitcoin (something we agree on!). The point I'm trying to make is that just because you and I don't find value in it, doesn't mean that the value doesn't exist. My entire argument here is that my personal feelings don't matter, and importantly, neither do yours.
That argument of subjectivity is a lot more uncomfortable for people because it means that you have to just sort of accept that some people see value in something that you don't. That's the idea I'm trying to convey to you. The only objective fact is that everything is subjective.
The Diamond-Water paradox isn't some "feeling", it's a real economic theory that attempts to explain the exact question you've been grappling with. You've been asking all the right questions, they're just questions that have already been asked before when dealing with conceptually similar assets (obviously not "the exact same").
> I don't get the impression that you understand value at all
Oh you've more than made it clear that you have this impression. You just haven't done the best job explaining to me why that is.
> If you actually aim to learn, you could start with the Lean look at value; they write some pretty accessible stuff. But I'm done here.
I'm more than happy to learn! But you'd have been better off in this conversation if you spent less of your time attacking me or expressing indignation at the mere fact that I'm making my points and more of your time making the specific case for why the Subjective Theory of Value doesn't hold or what the "Lean look at value" is and why it's compelling (I'd even believe you if you fully articulated it).
Please don't do this sort of tit-for-tat flamewar on HN. I know it's extremely difficult not to get sucked in (believe me, I know), but when the comments get to this stage, the path of curious conversation was abandoned a long time ago. We're trying for something else here.
If rubies didn't exist and somebody were setting out to invent them at the cost of major ecological harm plus enormous waste and collateral damage to financial novices then that would be a decent comparison. Except that rubies have intrinsic value, whereas Bitcoin doesn't, making it a yet worse analogy.
> different but [...] still being "the same"
I am going to take this as an exercise in aggressive point-missing on your part. If you still don't get the point, feel free to ask.
> Bitcoin is absolutely valueless
I didn't say Bitcoin was valueless. Again, you seem to be aggressively missing the point.
> BNY Mellon and BlackRock
That's not proof of value. Traders will trade anything with enough volatility, because that's how they make money. Making money is frequently distinct from creating value. I'm speaking specifically of value, which again, Bitcoin has not demonstrated net value creation, especially when compared with other things that started at the same time, and especially when there's a full accounting of costs.