martillo

I should have talked about a drop contribution in the demand. The demand is affected by many factors I know.

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."

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?

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???

All my doubts were already clarified in this thread, thanks.

When I said: it was with general applicability. It can be applied to anything spending too much energy I think. Now, if you ask for back up it while applied specifically to bitcoin I don't have it. It is a conclusion of mine as consequence of Elon Musk comment and the conversation we are all having in this thread. What I don't understand is the mess you are doing with such a simple thing. Please, take it easy. Does not worth to get angry with this. The main aim of the thread is to discuss about who pays the huge energy caused by Bitcoin. Hope not everybody us. Your talk about shit remembered something still remaining to answer to deemreepr: It is known from survivors stories that different people take different decisions even at the same situation. In some very strange situations people take rare decisions. Someones prefer to do something, others prefer to just stay waiting for rescue and others prefer to not survive... Here in my country we have such a story. The Andes mountains tragedy. A film was made about it, "Alive".

It is well known by everybody that the demand of many things are affected by its energy consumption. Any vehicle, cars, planes, ships. You have it also in home appliances like heaters, refrigerators, air-conditioners, etc. This does not require back up.

Impressive language, let me say. I suppose you are let to use it in the forum. Do you mean you don't know that energy consumption affect the demand of many things in the market nowadays? Obvious things don't need to be backed up. If Elon Musk lied he did it with a well founded justification.

Elon Musk recently invested in bitcoin causing its rise and after stated Tesla will not deal with bitcoin because of its energy consumption causing drop. Isn't this volatility due to its current energy consumption? Demand is strongly afeected by energy consumption nowadays.

Elon Musk stated Tesla will not deal with bitcoin because of its energy consumption what is directly related to the mining of the cryptocoin. May be energy consumption is not the unique phenomenon contributing to volatility. Which other ones would you mention?

Coincidentally I was just thinking on the problems of mixing paper money with virtual money... I mean, some virtual community could be thought with people virtually earning virtual money someway but if that virtual money could be bought by real paper money things change... That's a different thing, I know. Bitcoin is not intended to remain virtually only. It pretend to be real money but digital. The problem is that it is not achieving the goal nowadays due the problems we are discussing about.

This was very right then: I was thinking in: And somewhere else I saw bitcoins are near to reach their minting limit so seems sooner or later the huge mining and associated consumption of energy will have an end afterall. Without mining the cryptocoin will become more stable, less speculative and more common people would be inclined to deal with it, I mean as virtual money in some more common virtual community...

That is the answer. Unfortunately may be, or may be not. May be the huge consumption of energy is just temporary and all the bubble ends in some more stable thing afterall. Who knows...

But who could be interested in buying selling things and services with such unstable money? The original aim of having virtual money for some virtual community is lost. It would have no or little value at the end. So bubble...

But they would have a return for their investment. I think dimreepr wonders now who at the end pays it all. I think the questions then would be: who is really interested in make bussiness with a cryptocoin? And: who would really buy it and deal with it?

Well... I want to give thanks to everybody for their answers which were very right from the beginning of the thread and apologize for some silly questions of mine. They were due to my total ignorance on the matter of cryptocoins. I appreciate having a better understanding on them now. Thanks for your time and patience. I posted the thread worried about that huge consumption of energy ignoring from what it comes and who in practice would pay the cost. I think I know now. I came up with an analogy now. Cryptocoins mining movement on economy could be analogous to the Linux movement in software. Both in principle made up for free with the contributions of volunteers around the world but with costs and rewards at the end. The difference would be in the amount of money involved. Nobody got millonaire with Linux and it doesn't consume the same amount of energy of an entire country. The other difference is that Linux does not look like a bubble...

My little understanding in money says to me that criptography is needed to be added in any virtual money that could be developed to ensure safety in the transactions. That was considered even in the beginning of the creation of the first virtual coins. Seems something obvious.What I don't get is how and why mining the coins has been introduced. Seems something not really needed for me. Couldn't virtual coins be developed and implemented to work without mining? Mainly if mining is the cause of such huge consumption of energy why isn't it avoided? I don't get it...

Yes, wrong calculations. I will stay with the comment at the beginning: "In August 2018, a Princeton University associate professor expert in cryptocurrency testified at a hearing of the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The testimony said that bitcoin mining accounts for nearly 5 gigawatts—or about 1% of the world's energy use. That is slightly more than what is used by the entire state of Ohio.1" Anyway, looks too much to just mantain a coin in the world for me. Another way to implement this is needed, I think.

Here the appeared link: https://www.thebalance.com/how-much-power-does-the-bitcoin-network-use-391280 Seems to be the power needed by a bitcoin network. May be there's something wrong in the calculation. May be I posted it too fast without checking....

Googling about cryptocoin mining found this google answer: "No matter how many miners, it still takes 10 minutes to mine one bitcoin. At 600 seconds (10 minutes), all else being equal, it will take 72,000 GW (or 72 Terawatts) of power to mine a bitcoin using the average power usage provided by ASIC miners." It looks something absurd to me...

I apologize, I'm understanding what cryptocoins' mining means just now I think...

Are you saying that cryptocoins have associated a very expensive game now and that game being reponsible for the main consumption of energy? May be I'm just beginning to understand, not sure. Seems to me now that a cryptocoin would be like the money of a virtual country in the web. A volatile country then...

I thought cryptocoins could simplify monetary transactions in a big "digital world". I suppose that was the original aim but at this cost no way...

So summaryzing, cryptocoins have real value zero, their energy consumption could worm up the planet in 2ºC and we all will pay more for our needed energy. Nice deal...

I want both... 😄