Talk:Bitcoin
|
This Economics related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Reconsideration of BTC as of 2021[edit]
I think things drastically changed since 2018, while I was a sceptic about BTC (as the article is) in that time period, things move quickly and BTC started to really proove itself and gained momentum with huge retail investors flocking to BTC. I think this whole article needs reconsideration, and more updated views. --94.44.250.178 (talk) 01:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- (EC) Not a BTC enthusiast, but yes the article is indeed outdated. Bitcoin showed a resilience that we thought it would never show. Not removing the silver status, but do question it. 01:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC) — Unsigned, by: GeeJayK / talk / contribs
- The altcoin section is rather grossly out of date too. It says "Ethereum's the trendy coin of 2016", has it not been updated in five years? The "honest ponzi" and TheDAO dapps are ancient history at this point, there's rather a lot more interesting things than that going on. 174.3.226.189 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Another issue with the Ethereum section is some honestly pretty egregious weasel wording regarding ETH's move to proof of stake, and the resultant energy usage reduction; it claims that the reduction in energy usage "is something that may actually be somewhat true" (it simply IS true) and that "has not proven on a large scale yet." A cryptocurrency is a computer algorithm, one does not need epistemological proof to say that there will be a reduction in energy; the energy usage from proof of work coins comes from hashing, and proof of stake does not require intensive hashing, therefore there will be less energy used. And of course, this is even more egregious considering that the move to proof of stake is now complete, and the energy reduction has happened totally as predicted. The only source that seems to relate to the energy usage claim is refs 155 and 156 (those are redundant by the way, one links to the PDF of the paper and the other links to the IEEE database entry for said study); I've only read the abstract, but it clearly says "First, we confirm the concerns around the energy footprint of PoW by showing that Bitcoin’s energy consumption exceeds the energy consumption of all PoS-based systems analyzed by at least three orders of magnitude.", which seems pretty cut and dry to me. 2601:402:C202:BA70:9D9D:5941:EB90:FDEC (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Just edit it then 2600:4040:403C:F300:7544:9F30:D062:9FF5 (talk) 13:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Another issue with the Ethereum section is some honestly pretty egregious weasel wording regarding ETH's move to proof of stake, and the resultant energy usage reduction; it claims that the reduction in energy usage "is something that may actually be somewhat true" (it simply IS true) and that "has not proven on a large scale yet." A cryptocurrency is a computer algorithm, one does not need epistemological proof to say that there will be a reduction in energy; the energy usage from proof of work coins comes from hashing, and proof of stake does not require intensive hashing, therefore there will be less energy used. And of course, this is even more egregious considering that the move to proof of stake is now complete, and the energy reduction has happened totally as predicted. The only source that seems to relate to the energy usage claim is refs 155 and 156 (those are redundant by the way, one links to the PDF of the paper and the other links to the IEEE database entry for said study); I've only read the abstract, but it clearly says "First, we confirm the concerns around the energy footprint of PoW by showing that Bitcoin’s energy consumption exceeds the energy consumption of all PoS-based systems analyzed by at least three orders of magnitude.", which seems pretty cut and dry to me. 2601:402:C202:BA70:9D9D:5941:EB90:FDEC (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- The altcoin section is rather grossly out of date too. It says "Ethereum's the trendy coin of 2016", has it not been updated in five years? The "honest ponzi" and TheDAO dapps are ancient history at this point, there's rather a lot more interesting things than that going on. 174.3.226.189 (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
This is 2024 and this article reads like conservatives trying to defend their national money system; this is unworthy of a wiki called "rationalwiki," which I thought was about critical thinking, facts, and not personal bias and purposefully not mentioning info to manipulate the reader's opinion (for instance, no mention of the 21 million limit, how this limit is enforced, etc). Also a mention of the cambridge bitcoin index page would help. I invite people who care about this wiki to correct this article. --2A01:CB14:848C:FD00:56B:3BC5:4882:176A (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Lavalizard101 (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this article unfortunately is out of date, and notably does not mention Sam Bankman-Fried
and all of the other spectacular crypto implosions of 2022-2023. :p BobJohnson (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, this article unfortunately is out of date, and notably does not mention Sam Bankman-Fried
Re: energy usage[edit]
This section needs to be updated. As of May 2021, the Bitcoin network is estimated to use 120 TWh/year (so nearly 14 GW). A single transaction is estimated to use 1.3 MWh. That's as much energy as forgetting to shut off your oven for over 20 days. (Note: I'm not sure if the 2400-watt figure accounts for the thermostat shutting the oven off once it's nice and hot. For the sake of this example, I have assumed that it does.)
Sometimes Bitcoiners like to bring up Netflix. However, you need to watch Netflix for 17k hours to use as much electricity as one Bitcoin transaction.
—ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 02:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)