iNow

Just note that UY Scuti is no longer considered the largest star. Turns out it's much closer to us than originally thought so the calculations of diameter were inaccurate... It's still ginormous, just not the most ginormous.

I’m shocked to see that deforestation increases emissions and decreases absorption. Shocked, I tells ya. Humans often suck.

I don't think it's valid or even helpful to compare global reserve currencies like the dollar and the pound... which are governed by the Federal Reserve and Bank of England... and which also allow those nation states to print and push more currency into circulation and to qualitatively ease the markets with the stroke of a pen... with cryptocurrencies which are limited in supply by design and not associated with any country or government. Is perhaps easier to think about it more like a stock that one can transfer easily through platforms like PayPal and Venmo

A simple visual for historical context https://www.visualcapitalist.com/bitcoin-historical-corrections-from-all-time-highs/

I’ve watched so many through the years that I can barely remember many. I absolutely second the nomination for Chasing Ice, though… much like I seconded it when you mentioned it 2 years ago in a climate denier thread. Lol 😂

And thank you for the opportunity to discuss and interact. I suspect we’re not the only ones who learned and benefited from this exchange.

Perhaps… but TBH I’m not really willing to accept your speculations on this topic as valid given the consistency of misunderstandings you’ve demonstrated throughout this thread. Your position (while well intentioned, I’m sure) seems confused and uninformed. https://www.ft.com/content/eec2ffb3-73f4-4397-b6bf-58c60fc8a8a7

Maybe they could just stop forcing people from their homes and stealing the land on which they’ve settled, or not attack them during religious services… or let them have food and vaccines without blocking them.

And another just for fun:

Exactly It will probably be stable or go up until all coins are mined / more attractive crypto currencies replace it.

In the US alone, at least 46 Million people (approximately 17% of the entire population) own at least some bitcoin. You seem to be unaware that fractional ownership is possible. You don't buy a "coin." You can buy as little as One One Hundredth Million of a Bitcoin... That means you can own 0.00000001 BTC and still “own Bitcoin.” Cost of a full bitcoin as of the time of this post $46,375. That means you could right now buy a piece of bitcoin for $0.0005 (only 5 one hundredths of a single penny). How exactly is that too expensive for general population? Admittedly, there is usually a $5 minimum required for a transaction, but that's moot given my actual point. I know that's what you think, and there's no evidence that this is correct. Quite the opposite, really. So you're saying only gamblers and crooks own Bitcoin? That's quite a generalization.

You seem to believe that demand for Bitcoins from the general population goes down as a result of the energy costs miners must pay to retrieve new ones. You seem to believe that demand for Bitcoins will go down among the general population due to the costs banks and technology platforms who manage Bitcoin owner accounts/profiles pass on to their members (transaction fees, account service fees, etc.). You assert that those costs from mining and those costs for account management are being passed on to Bitcoin owners, and that this somehow affects demand for Bitcoins. I explained why I find your thinking flawed and you said that we cannot agree. You say that you disagree when I say these same issues you describe apply to ALL banking and ALL currencies and ALL investments. You seem to disagree when I say it's silly to apply these thoughts only to cryptocurrency, or only to Bitcoin specifically. Please explain why you disagree. It's okay for us not to agree. I'm simply trying to understand your position. Right now, your position makes very little sense to me. I'm asking for your help to see things more clearly from your perspective. What informs your conclusion that demand for Bitcoin is affected by how much energy is consumed when mining it? Elon Musk making one tweet that causes a sudden drop in price is just an anecdote, not data or evidence in support of your claim that energy consumption needs affects Bitcoin demand.

Which costs? You seem very confused about BTC costs and their payment.

That’s off track and off topic. Interesting question. Maybe it deserves its own separate thread.

Also because it helps save the lives of those you love, those you know, and those you neither.

His interests are less about the area and more about destabilization more broadly… to erode the foundations of democratic principles themselves. No matter how tight you make it, it will never have zero porosity. Human ingenuity is a beautiful thing, although sometimes regrettable. I recommend we focus a bit less on trying to further tighten already tight border controls (symptoms) and focus a bit more on removing the reasons the Palestinians have been so upset for decades to begin with (root cause). I also acknowledge how extremely simple it is to type this and how extremely hard it is to achieve this.

It shows that the Iron Dome our US annual $3B+ investment in Israel built seems to be working pretty well. Every coin has 3 sides. Any bets that Putin and his minions have helped feed the discord? (And are continuing to do so right now in our various social feeds)

Parler comes back to the App Store on Monday. https://www.vox.com/recode/2021/5/17/22441143/parler-apple-app-store-hate-speech

I don’t believe that’s true for any but a tiny few environmentalist / green investors, but you’re certainly welcome to your opinion.

I’m unfamiliar with this term. Will you please elaborate?

Did he not cause demand to decrease as a result of his comments? Transaction fees and interest fees on holdings are hardly specific to crypto currencies. Even standard savings and checking accounts often have them. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but the exact opposite of this is what we’ve seen happening with BTC values these last several years. It’s down about $15,000 in the last few weeks (almost reached $64K just one month ago), but the trend the last 5 years suggests your “theory” doesn’t accurately describe reality and should be abandoned.

I tend to agree, and also acknowledge that if easy answers were available here they’d have been implemented decades ago. As best I can tell, Bibi has declined all attempts from other nations, from the UN, and from Palestinians leaders themselves to move forward with a cease fire… rejecting those overtures saying that assaults will persist until they’re satisfied sufficient damage has been done to Palestinian battle capabilities. Basically, the beatings will continue until morale improves… This seems hyperbolic and straight out of Bibis reelection messaging campaign.

Energy consumption often (but not always) influences demand on consumer products where energy costs if owing that product play a major role. You mentioned several good examples of these yourself… automobiles, appliances, air conditioning units, etc. These are goods that require continuous inputs of energy after they’ve been purchased and hence there will be payment outlays one must make across the entire life of the product… I must pay my electricity bill to keep my refrigerator and AC running… I must buy gasoline to keep my car running… buy natural gas or propane to run the furnace during winter in our home. These are all goods where considering energy consumption as part of the Total Cost of Ownership makes very good sense, and those considerations can and often do affect demand… more efficient products tend to outcompete less efficient options other things being equal (Not always, though... see also people buying horribly inefficient sports cars and big trucks, etc… energy consumption is only one among thousands of variables). Bitcoin is a different category entirely, though. It’s not a consumer good. It’s an investment… a gamble… a currency that can be sold and traded to buy other things. Once you’ve bought it, however, you own it. It’s yours, and there’s no need to pay for gas to keep it running, or to buy electricity to keep it online. There are no additional considerations other than, “I paid $X to obtain it and right now it’s worth $Y” and energy consumption is irrelevant. The people who mined it had to purchase electricity to do slayer… and the platform/bank who holds your bitcoins has to pay for servers and network infrastructure to support your account and manage the transactions, but those are fees THEY are responsible for and they aren’t generally something you need to worry about yourself even though you’re the owner of the Bitcoin. For that reason, it’s simply incorrect and inaccurate to say energy consumption is in any way relevant to Bitcoin demand or even price. Sure, Elon Musk made a passing tweet about it and I’m sure there are many environmentalists in the world who who would never buy Bitcoin for these reasons of energy consumption, but these folks are a tiny marginal fractional few in the broader and much larger cryptocurrency market. They aren’t relevant enough to care about in discussions of overall price. Hope that helps.

It’s a direct response to you suggesting demand for Bitcoin would go down due to the mining of it consuming so much energy. Here it is again in case you forgot:

The people using the electricity pay for it. The rest of us suffer externalities from their actions. If you clarify where you’re confused about this, we can try to address that. In other words, your comment was completely irrelevant to what we’ve been here discussing. Got it.