Jump to content

martillo

Senior Members
  • Posts

    256
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://sites.google.com/view/anewlightinphysics

Profile Information

  • Location
    Uruguay
  • College Major/Degree
    Electrical Engineer
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Physics

Retained

  • Quark

Recent Profile Visitors

2979 profile views

martillo's Achievements

Atom

Atom (5/13)

4

Reputation

  1. You like to leave people thinking... What that would be?
  2. I mean, the average price of the coin would not strongly affect its demand as its volatility, for instance, would.
  3. Yes, iNow and StringJUnky have just clarified me that point but thanks anyway for your this and some previous contribution in the thread. Everybody helped to clarify confusions and misconceptions about cryptocoins. Actually I don't know if the price of the coin and the energy consumption are totally independent but the energy cost does not affect directly the price and the demand as I initially thought. I got it now. May be for instance the energy consumption sets, in average with time, a minimum in the price of the coin because in average all the miners, banks, platforms, etc must win isn't it? And the price would not strongly affect the demand of the coin. Am I wrong in something now?
  4. Of course. I opened the thread asking for answers and admiting "I don't know well how cryptocoins work." My misinformation and confusion was already clarified now, I think. That was the aim of the thread. Useful for me and for otherones I think. Thanks for your contribution.
  5. All that human effort and consumtion of energy to mantain, let me say, an "informal" economy of "informal" business... It could be interpreted as a sink of the "formal" circulating money to "informal" activities and someones could be inclined to forbid that. Bitcoin is forbidden in certain countries. But who knows what would be "formal" and what "informal" in the future? It is known that considered "informal" activities in the past became "formal" time after. And some "informal" activities were always tolerated in all human societies ever. Seems to me now that Bitcoin came to stay but as an "informal" coin. For "formal" business we already have the proper dollar stablished as the main international money the same as English is stablished as the main international language. In this sense Bitcoin does not compete with dollar anyway, just complement it...
  6. So, as iNow said, the opposite of what I was thinking: just the demand setting the price and the energy consumption as consequence... If this is the case I have a final question: Would the energy consumption (due to mining) continue so high if the cryptocoin maintains its existence, even still rise or it could drop with time?
  7. I will think more about this but which do you think is the cause of the high price of Bitcoin then?
  8. Yes, as StringJunky said Bitcoin is popular for "gamblers and crooks to wash their money" only. Is not the case of general population acquiring it to buy things on the web. I consider this a small demand for a worldwide virtual coin compared with the general population. Bitcoin could be a great business but with those people only. I think this is because Bitcoin is too expensive for the general population. Considering the graphic you provided and not taken into account the last peak can be seen Bitcoin averaging about 10k dollars (1 Bitcoin - 10K dollars). Too expensive for the general population I think. I associate the high price of Bitcoin mainly (not being the unique factor involved) to the high cost of its energy consumption. A price that only "gamblers and crooks" can pay (a small demand at the end). Other factor would be just the psycologica one. General people perceive that bad scenario someway and don't like to deal with it. That's my reasoning about.
  9. I'm not confused anymore. It was you that have already clarified my confusion: Thanks for the answer. The last postings in this thread were just about the mess you made because I said that the electric energy cost of Bitcoin (already clarified early in the thread as due to mining) would affect negativelly in the demand of the cryptocoin. We have already talk too much about. Actually the discussion is centered in if the energy cost paid by miners, banks, platforms, etc is or is not passed to the final users of the coin affecting negativelly its demand. You said that is not valid. Seems we will not agree. I'm don't know much on Economy so I cannot discuss in your terms I think. I don't know if I could continue the discussion. Please try to make things simple.
  10. My concern in this thread is about costs not ecology issues. By the way, I don't consider myself as an environmentalist although I take some care on the environment. I don't like to live in the garbage.
  11. I mean that the energy costs just contribute negativelly in the demand, it is just one of the factors affecting the demand.
  12. I should have talked about a drop contribution in the demand. The demand is affected by many factors I know.
  13. Seems you edited that post and I didn't see this before. As far as I know the original aim was to have a worldwidw money competing with international credit cards. I mean you would not need an international credit card, would just need to buy some international money to make some international business. Of course it would be valid between who would acept the money only. For now, due to its price and volatility, as StringJunky said: "It's a game for gamblers and crooks to wash their money."
  14. I finally understood your disagreement but there's something you must take into account, I think: Those ones, the miners, the banks, platforms, will not make it for free. They have to pay a large amount for their electrical energy consumption. Now, as it is a fact that the total energy consumption by Bitcoin is huge as large as a country, that cost is distributed among them and I guess it would be nothing but neglihible, am I wrong? And they would need real money to pay for it. So, they someway will pass the cost to the users of the coin, those making business with it, or not? If not they will simply lose the money of the cost of the energy something I don't think they want in any way. Then, that cost is passed to the buyers of the coin and what does this mean? Means the rising of price of the coin and as the coin get more expensive I guess a drop in the demand. Final users of the coin would have to pay more for it. I think in the coin just as a tool for making business and the tool getting more expensive for the users and so a drop in its demand would be expected. Where I could be wrong in this reasoning now?
  15. I arrived to that conclusion with the discussion in this thread. It's a conclusion of my own, I agree. It is a natural conclusion for me. I don't have a scientific back up for it. What do you mean? Are you asking me to make a rigorous demonstration within Economics Theory of it? I'm not an Economist. I cannot do that. You commented: Seems you are referring in economical terms something I don't know too much. What I don't understand is why you refuse to include energy consumption as an important factor in the variation of demand in general and particularly in the demand of bitcoin. Am I making some error in the Economics Theory with this? I wonder where is the fatal error I made for you to make a mess with this... (???) Elon Musk founded his decision for Tesla not deal with Bitcoin on its energy consumption. May be he lied as you mentioned, I don't know. What I know is that If Elon Musk made such justification it must be valid in economical terms. So would be my conclusion. May be you are right in that is not a direct relation between demand of bitcoin and its mining energy consumption. It could be an indirect one, but what is the problem???
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.