Quote from: AlcoHoDL on Today at 04:30:41 PM

Quote from: empowering on Today at 03:43:38 PM

WHITE HOUSE TO CRAFT BITCOIN MINING POLICY ADDRESSING ENERGY USE: REPORT
The Biden administration is reportedly crafting policies intended to lower energy consumption and emissions from bitcoin mining.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/white-house-to-reduce-bitcoin-energy-use-report

It's the same old narrative: "we must make Bitcoin use less energy"... Those who advocate this idea cannot see that it is a fallacy by definition. It's precisely that inflow of energy that gives Bitcoin its value. Cut down the energy usage, and you cut down Bitcoin's value. If there's something they should be targeting, it is not the amount of energy used, but the energy source (fossil fuels vs. renewable sources).

The amount of energy has to be kept high, and should actually increase, for the price to be able to reach 6 digits and beyond. It is precisely the immense amount of energy required for mining that gives Bitcoin its scarcity, and hence its value. It's a closed-loop system.

Those bureaucrats don't have a clue.

It seems that the source is also a kind of false dichotomy.

I have no problem with the idea of supplementing various energy sources, but there seem to be a lot of problems just getting into a framework that tries to classify various energies as if they can do the same things that fossil energies have been able to do... all kinds of false narratives seem to exist when there is too much attempt to control the narrative in terms of this energy good and this energy bad, but then realizing that the answers are not as cut and dry as they are made out to be in terms of the various trade-offs that go into the matters of even when put into practice and also stress tested and also to figure out in truthful empirical ways rather than just plotting matters out on paper.

Quote from: Richy_T on Today at 05:13:20 PM

Quote from: AlcoHoDL on Today at 04:30:41 PM

It's the same old narrative: "we must make Bitcoin use less energy"... Those who advocate this idea cannot see that it is a fallacy by definition. It's precisely that inflow of energy that gives Bitcoin its value. Cut down the energy usage, and you cut down Bitcoin's value. If there's something they should be targeting, it is not the amount of energy used, but the energy source (fossil fuels vs. renewable sources).

If you really want to cut energy use, slash the federal government by 90% and allow the current banking system to atrophy as it should.

Oh gawd.... case in point.... Roll Eyes

Quote from: serveria.com on Today at 05:52:17 PM

Quote from: LFC_Bitcoin on Today at 03:22:52 PM

$30,000 definitely feels like the $6,000 point in 2018. We’re just here chilling, thinking this is the bottom & we can’t go any lower. I hope it is but if we test the lows I am going to buy with all I have.

Interesting times!

True, but... $3k was not supposed to happen: it was caused by a black swan event when sort of a flash crash happened and we were back to ~$6k soon. So quite possible $6k was the true bottom. We will certainly never find out. Atm I don't see how we can go lower than $25k without something really apocalyptic like "US bans Bitcoin" which is btw totally possible because of the latest news of Russia embracing BTC. There's always old good zombie apocalypse for sure too... Grin

LFC is referring to the November 2018 crashening from $6k to $nearly $3k.. which took until after the April 2019 UPpity exponential for BTC prices to get back above $6k (whichwas in the ballpark of 5-ish months - which I surely would not describe "getting right back."

Now the March 2020 crashening did ONLY take a few weeks to get back above $6k.. but not before it had given mindrust a second chance to buy back his 10BTC below his mid $4k prices.. .which he refused to do and caused that subsequent recovery to feel even more dramatic for guys who had naysayed bitcoin in those kinds of ways.