Bitcoin
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
i think BTC is going to give up the entire recent move just like small caps - might sell some more if I can get to 6/2 to avoid ST cap gains. it's hanging by a thread with a head and shoulders chart pattern.
A bullshit claim. Obviously, if you've bought billions of dollars worth of Bitcoin, there's plenty of liquidity in the marketplace. And incidentally, Tesla made more off the sale of 10% of it's BTC holdings than it had made from selling cars since it's inception. Hmm.
It's difficult to know exactly why Elon does what he does, but he probably has access to sources of information that we may not, that may reflect unbiased reality a little more accurately. IMO Elon thought it would make money, simple as that. Occam's razor and all. I think later he realized it doesn't alight with Tesla's mission statement because of all the coal used to support it. I think he does some things on impulse, this is believable given some of his bizarre tweets and interviews.
If you think btc energy useage isn't an issue, IDK what to say, all you have to do is look at the mining requirements and it's obvious. It was obvious 10 years ago when people were selling btc mining hardware that costs hundreds of dollars a month to run, and the requirements increase with time so btc uses more and more energy. This is undeniable even by the most hardcore btc-lovers. Those making excuses for this are showing bias that is distorting perceptions to the point they have little to do with reality. I would argue perceptions of btc are massively altered by purchasing btc, to a disturbing degree.
While current financial institutions use a lot of energy, it's NOWHERE CLOSE to btc useage and the services they offer only overlap to a degree with btc. Most of their services will still be required in some form, the false equivalence between btc and CC companies is ridiculous and nowhere close to reality.
Whatever your thoughts on Elon... personally I disagree with him on most things, Tesla cars suck and are not green, going to Mars is a stupid goal right now, the Cyber Truck is ugly AF, etc... it's hard to ignore his massive success and the influence he has in the world today. It's possible he just knows more than you do and is smarter than you are. Just saying... Oh, and Doge is going to $5.
If you think btc energy useage isn't an issue, IDK what to say, all you have to do is look at the mining requirements and it's obvious. It was obvious 10 years ago when people were selling btc mining hardware that costs hundreds of dollars a month to run, and the requirements increase with time so btc uses more and more energy. This is undeniable even by the most hardcore btc-lovers. Those making excuses for this are showing bias that is distorting perceptions to the point they have little to do with reality. I would argue perceptions of btc are massively altered by purchasing btc, to a disturbing degree.
While current financial institutions use a lot of energy, it's NOWHERE CLOSE to btc useage and the services they offer only overlap to a degree with btc. Most of their services will still be required in some form, the false equivalence between btc and CC companies is ridiculous and nowhere close to reality.
Whatever your thoughts on Elon... personally I disagree with him on most things, Tesla cars suck and are not green, going to Mars is a stupid goal right now, the Cyber Truck is ugly AF, etc... it's hard to ignore his massive success and the influence he has in the world today. It's possible he just knows more than you do and is smarter than you are. Just saying... Oh, and Doge is going to $5.
Got any real world stats for that Dave?
Think of all the banks, all the buildings, all the computers in those buildings etc etc and the server farms they undoubtedly use.
And I wonder if there exists any real world stats comparing BTC mining to lithium mining an processing from an environmental perspective. Not to mention, all these lithium batteries become toxic waste at the end of their service lives and "battery recycling" is usually a euphemism for "throwing them in a fire somewhere in China" because the cells are very difficult to disassemble. Someone got to Elon. He's not gating the sale of his products on making them environmentally perfect - or even terribly friendly.
Tesla stock well down since SNL too. Because he was er... rubbish on it, maybe?
I'm finding him hard to like at the mo. But I do like the Starship stuff. Consistently crashing rockets is fun!
What is this ridiculous language? It's called a SALE.
Dave you're a little confused... That statement is utter nonsense. You think that if anyone could "turn up" their miners when the difficulty goes up, they wouldn't have done it before????????? The miners run balls to the wall all the time. They never change how much energy they use. The only way to change energy usage is to turn them off or buy more miners.
This ol' trope is getting old. I probably know a lot more than you do dude. Judging from your other posts, you should be listening a lot more than talking.
EDIT: Do I even need to address the ridiculous misinterpretation of my post? The meaning you attached to my words and how you got there is incomprehensible to me. Please just stop, stop, stop being so dense!
Last edited:
There's a ton of info out there, you are more than capable of doing your own research.
If you think blockchain is going to make all other financial services obsolete you are sadly mistaken. All of the buildings, computers, etc. will still be there regardless.
Dave set aside your bias and re-read the posts. I've actually done the infrastructure planning for a crypto mine.
Difficultly just means the miners have more work to do to complete the same action, but it's the exact same work. If what you said was true there would be a VERY interesting market for PSU's for them... and there isn't. You buy the most efficient PSU you can that runs very close to it's max load 100% of the time. It's been that way since miners were specific and not just your random computer.
Difficultly just means the miners have more work to do to complete the same action, but it's the exact same work. If what you said was true there would be a VERY interesting market for PSU's for them... and there isn't. You buy the most efficient PSU you can that runs very close to it's max load 100% of the time. It's been that way since miners were specific and not just your random computer.
JFC, dude! Just stop. You continually misinterpret my posts so you can setup strawmen and argue. Once again, in discussing crypto with someone who thinks it's a bad idea, supporters ALWAYS try to say the person they disagree with "doesn't know what they are talking about".
I looked into mining btc 10 years ago, I know exactly what difficulty means, how they operate, etc. and decided it's a bad idea to have to continuously buy new computer gear and use so much electricity.
Folsom, I'm a f#$king engineer. I've wrote code to solve partial differential equations from scratch. Your continuous condescending attitude, coming from someone who thinks they know what they are talking about, but doesn't really... is absurd. Look up Dunning-Kruger and take some time to self-reflect.
Hi all, I actually like reading the arguments and different perspectives... how else do you learn? Please let's not turn this into Audiogon with the personal attacks though. Readers here are intelligent and can figure out who's right.
Cheat answer and I was expecting you to do the work!
The banking buildings and computers sure will be there though the numbers are going down.
I think there's more than a Las Vegas worth of banks in the world still. But let me see what I can find. Bear in mind you can find stats to support almost anything, though.
Fiat runs on computers these days. Whether it's blockchain or not is pretty irrelevant apart from the fact that continually trying to guess the first 30 bytes of a SHA algorithm is admittedly processor intensive. If you don't like that buy Ada.
But digital crypto is the way fiat currencies will go. It's just going to happen. Simple as. Ref China's digital RMB.
At the end of the day, it's better technology, even if the old school Wall Street guys don't like it. That said, VHS beat Betamax so that in itself is no be all and end all.
BTC will never be a currency. It's too slow to be a currency. It's designed to be a digital version of gold. Every cryptocurrency has pros and cons. But the energy argument is just too subjective. Who's to say where energy is or isn't well spent? I'm certainly not going to entertain the idea that I should be doing my laundry in a bucket instead of a washing machine. The washing machine uses energy but is simply a better and more convenient way to clean my clothes. Cryptocurrency offers advantages over legacy trust based systems, and has utility in many market segments. Ethereum is essentially aiming to be the world's super computer; a base layer that can be built on top of with applications of all sorts. Currently, though, its gas fees are just too high. But scaling solutions and version 2.0 may solve that. And then you have Cardano, Polkadot, Avalanche, Solano, etc - all layer 1 solutions coming to the game now. This market is very early and very amateurish as Elon has been able to show. But, chances are, he's planning to build something on top of one of these in the near future. In fact, all the major tech companies want to get involved in crypto. It's not going away. Quite the opposite.
Similar threads
