At this point maybe nobody knows this for sure.
IF industry is going to have an energy-problem, then everybody else WILL have a financial problem (and many become poor - we heave just now 9% inflation and industry is running fine, what will happen if it isn’t running anymore).
And IF gas for private heating will be scarce, then everybody WILL have a problem with electricity (since many will heat with electric and kill our grid). It’s not for sure but MAYBE we have a problem.
So maybe it’s a good idea to have a plan B to warm some canned food up. Or how we say in Germany: Besser man hat als man hätte.
dec 2017 $19100 -> feb 2018 $6800 -> dec 2018 $3300 -> thats 35% of it's peak value after 2 months and 18% after 1 year.
nov 2013 $1130 -> apr 2014 $400 -> jan 2015 $200 -> thats 35% of it's peak value after 5 months and 18% after 1 year.
So yes, this happend before ... .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_sourc...
Depends. With just the cost per kWh is photovoltaic cheaper, but you would need additional storage for the nighttime, so it would become more expensive than nuclear. Also this didn’t account for winter time (in Germany photovoltaic make 5-10% compared to summer) and storing a half year worth of energy is going to be funny.(this will cost way way more than nuclear) A nuclear power plant could run 24/7 the whole year.
And the other months it's a not-so-strong dip in production (Jan 16%, Feb 31%, Mar 57%, Apr 94%, Jun 100%, Jul 100%, Aug 87%, Sep 60%, Okt 41%, Nov 22%, Dec 13%).
This means (for germany) we have to install more than 170% PV and store 3 months worth of energy for half a year (or install 800% and don't store anything). It's just a very rough estimation, but it's clear that one can't compare the cost of 1kWh PV to 1kWh nuclear (at least if one doesn't live in the desert).
I’m with you.
Many people constantly complain about windows but most of them still using it. They say it’s going to get better, but it won’t. You could spend five years trying to make windows run ob an M1 und MS would break it within an hour.
I’m done with microsoft, they disappointed me to many times, never again. It’s necessary for some games but it’s getting better with linux (thanks to valve).
That's simply not true. The cost of the bitcoin miner itself is insubstantial (a small percentage of its total lifetime cost), the primary cost of mining is the commodity energy cost.
If you had a lot of capital, you could also deploy that capital completely outside of crypto, multiply it, then come back into crypto to have a larger stake in the crypto assset than you started. So your comment is true, but really applies to every freely traded economic asset.
Anyway, the mining/staking in crypto isn't primarily about increasing wealth, it is about defending the blockchain. In this aspect, there is a huge difference between the PoW and PoS. If someone has >50% of a PoS token, there is no way to usurp their control of the blockchain unless they willingly sell their tokens. With PoW, because the mining uses a different resource (energy), it is always possible to invest more capital to usurp the control of the blockchain by creating a larger hashrate. The ownership structure of the actual PoW token doesn't really matter, because outside capital can be introduced into the system.
Why would it converge when we are already starting with concentration? PoS would only work if we all started with nothing from t=0 which NO ONE in the crypto space would concede to because they don’t want to give up their wealth. So in the end, you end up with something even worse than current state of capitalism.
I'm just saying that 'staking' in proof of stake isn't materially different than taking your Bitcoin and purchasing a share of a company that mines Bitcoin. [edit] you can always un-stake by selling your share.
Staking is similar to buying lottery tickets at the store, except you need never leave your home or pay any money for the tickets. It’s all about passive income generation.
Mining is a business, with real costs and logistics to fret about.
People should really stop doing the mental gymnastics to make push-button passive income generation seem extraordinarily challenging and, even more egregious, extremely equitable (“it’s _at least_ as fair as Bitcoin”).
> how does the capital cost being mining hardware and electricity rather than a pos token make the system more equitable?
Every well known proof of stake system today was either premined, ICO’d, sold to investors in private rounds at “special” prices, or some combination of these.
Naturally, if you were autoyielding passive income by staking pos coins you had a cost basis of effectively zero in, either because you participated in an ICO, or worse, because you had the right connections, or exploited your privileged position as developer to hard code coin balances for yourself into your own ledger prior to launch, you’d _love_ proof of stake and trumpet its supposed equity and fairness in public.
In reality, the most privileged and exploitative of investors who have the lowest entry price get the highest rate of return on staking (effectively ∞ in the case of premine recipients).
To insinuate this situation is “equitable” is beyond ridiculous.
no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".
late entrants add value to networks, and some of that value accrues to early entrants. this is the same for any network. a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
once the price of the token goes up, the difference between someone who was invited there early versus found their own way in does not matter to the new adopters. the inequity is felt purely based on the token price difference rather than the security mechanic.
> no one in this thread is promising utopia. i am merely pushing back against assertions of bitcoin being "most equitable".
Fairly launched proof of work systems are a great deal more equitable than PoS premined ICO coins. This is just a fact.
> a publicly accessible ico is just as equitable as someone mining btc with their cpu on low difficulty.
No, absolutely not. Obviously someone has to get the ICO money. How on earth is that “just as equitable” as anyone in the world being able to use any old Windows computer to mine coins on demand. With proof of work, money isn’t being transferred from end users to developers, or their many Swiss foundations.
the value accrues to the network (20 million to 300 billion over the last decade or so), not the dollars that went into the ico sale. the ico dollars are a rounding error.
Conflating the two things like this is completely ignorant.
Buying Bitcoin miners at first requires you to spend the Bitcoin.
Mining may help you gain Bitcoin, but it doesn't much allow you to control Bitcoin.
Pos literally gives you voting power over the currency's ecosystem just by having more of it. It completely concentrates control, and then it also returns gains to those with the larger stake (more wealth in said currency).
If you have significant fiat capital you can easily purchase mining power in PoW. Similar with purchasing validator power in PoS. The two are equal in that regard. Where they differ is that PoS is more resilient to 51% attacks of this nature than PoW is.
Or maybe better. In the first days of bitcoin nobody cared about a lost key. A few thousand bitcoin on an account nobody has access to? These bitcoin shouldn’t count, but it’s hard to count them. Maybe declare all bitcoins that didn’t move since eight years as lost?
I used Apple Maps Navigation a few minutes ago because I was to lazy to enter the destination in the car navigation system. And so I got really annoyed of Apple since all directions were 200m to late. I really like the feature where the phone remembers the position of the parked car.
It would be nice if I could send the destination from phone to car in a simple way (no route, just the destination), but this might only work with really new cars.
Tesla allows you to send an address from the Maps app to your car (via the share menu). It’s one of my favorite features. I have no idea why other manufacturers wouldn’t replicate that experience.
It took some time for me to adjust - Apple Maps shows your position exactly where you are, Google Maps shows your position in a few seconds in the future, which gives you more time to react. Once you realize the difference, it's much easier to use Apple Maps.
