“.01% of bitcoin holders hold 27% of all bitcoin! That’s 100x the wealth concentration of the regular economy.”

Next time someone tells you cryptocurrencies and blockchain are about decentralisation, laugh in their faces. Loudly. While pointing at them.

nitter.net/MorePerfectUS/statu

#cryptocurrency #blockchain #decentralisation #web3 #rightLibertarian #bullshit

@aral

So that's down from 100% being held by one anonymous person in 2009.
Sounds positive to me.

Don't forget that it doesn't matter how much #bitcoin you hold, it gives you no more control over the network than anyone else, unlike the current fiat systems.

@mark
It does, indirectly. If you are able to mine a lot of bitcoin you will also have access to a lot of real money, as you need that for "efficiently" mining them using cheap (often subsidized fossil) energy. The mining capacities grant power over the network. So it is an inverted cause and effect relation.
@aral

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Mining capacity does not grant power over the network, as has been undeniably proven with SegWit2x, UASF and the block size war and subsequent hard forks in general. Where's the proof for your argument exactly?

Follow

@raucao
We are really confused by your stance. The basic problem of PoW based blockchain applications is the 51% attack, which basically says: as soon as you have enough mining power you can control it. Of course this is not end of story, but the basic problem is there. Our point however was the inverse perspective: if you are rich you get more bitcoin and bitcoin will not solve any social or ecological problems. It is still unclear how much it will increase severity of specific problems.
@mark

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark This is patently wrong, and works exactly the opposite way to fiat money. where asset holders have profited from massive inflation, while poorer people lose purchasing power every day.

A bitcoin miner doesn't automatically earn more money from the coins they mined. They have to re-invest exactly the same amount of computing capacity, time, and electricity as any other miner competing with them, for every single block they try to mine.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Aside from that, you said "more money, more control", and now acknowledged, that one would need to gain 51% of mining power over the entire network. Which is basically impossible now.

@raucao @mark
Vor control over a few mining pools. Just because the scenarios are unlikely, they are not impossible.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Mining pools are just service providers for single miners. You can't just buy what miners do, and as proven by SegWit2x and UASF, even a majority of miners cannot affect changes over the rest of the network. You seem to have no idea what you're talking about to be honest.

@raucao @BUNDjugend_ak_digi

I concur.
I have given up replying.
If you are really interested in learning and understanding Bitcoin then create a Telegram group and invite me in.
I would be happy to explain.
Perhaps Rau would join us.

@mark
We're not using telegram for a lot of reasons, thanks for the offer though. As organization we are in touch with the scientific community and try to use that as a way to learn about the topic. Have a nice day!
@raucao

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark The general "scientific community" has no special expertise over this topic whatsoever. The creators and contributors of bitcoin are literally their own scientific community, as you would know if you had looked even a little bit into the computer science, theoretical underpinnings, and ongoing protocol improvements of bitcoin.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Btw, if you're referring to the work of a single central bank researcher, where most energy FUD about bitcoin originates, then here's a debate you could follow, where someone with deep industry knowledge addresses his points:

youtube.com/watch?v=6LP8G-oZnE

@raucao
It is not the general "scientific community" we are talking about those who specifically research the sustainability of blockchain technology e.g. at the Wuppertal Institute. It is uncommon that you talk about the scientific community as a whole when referring to them. You usually talk about the the researchers of the specific topic you're discussing.
@mark

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Still no mention of specific research or falsifiable results/publications.

This is going nowhere, if you keep handwaving about the secret science that gives you special analytical abilities (which so far have proven rather misguided).

@raucao
We use to talk to researchers directly to understand things, rather than just reading them and increasing the chances of misunderstanding. They however have published a lot of stuff. One example is here: wupperinst.org/en/a/wi/a/s/ad/
@mark

@raucao @mark
And just to remind you, besides a rather controversial YouTube Video you haven't proposed any sources yourself, while claiming we would be handwaving and "questioning" our competence to think at the same time. This conversation is rather unpleasant, and we will not participate anymore as it will continue this way.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark I have provided actual arguments and examples. "We're talking to people" is not how science works.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Also, if you can address actual points brought forward by Lyn in the video, then do it. Saying the entire debate is "controversial" is a complete cop-out.

You weren't able to refute my arguments about your claims of economic control and reverted to "we hear the ecological impact is too high", without bringing forward any actual arguments for me to falsify. Hence my recommendation for you to watch the debate, since you might actually learn a thing or two.

Good bye.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Wow, there is *zero* actual science about the resource expenditure of bitcoin mining in that paper. Instead, the authors merely recite basic FUD from online articles, and copy even the most basic mistakes, like for example comparing a complete monetary system with integrated settlement layer to a credit card gateway.

What a joke.

@raucao
If you think, insulting us makes a good conversation we are wasting our time. Goodbye.
@mark

@raucao
We are not arguing against what you are taking as an argument. But the rich can afford more and cheaper electricity etc. and therefore can gain more bitcoin, that was our point.
@mark

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark Again, you don't gain more control by doing that, and you have to compete on the same level as anyone else. So what is your point?

@raucao
Yes you do. If you have more computing power and cheaper electricity you will get more bitcoin/real money and as you can optimize this ratio, if you already have a lot of money and or power you will be able to get more bitcoin at a better ratio, than "poor" people. It is a vehicle for the rich to get richer.
@mark

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark That's neither how economics nor bitcoin mining works. Obviously you have never run a business, let alone one that deals in physical resource allocation. Again, you compete with the same resource requirements *as anyone else* for every block you attempt to mine.

@BUNDjugend_ak_digi @mark If you think that's a problem, then you seriously have to be against fiat money, since inflation is the singlest most serious factor in how much more money rich people have now, and gain every day, compared to everyone else.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Climate Justice Global

Welcome to this official Fediverse instance for climate justice groups.

There is also: climatejustice.rocks for individual activists climatejustice.social also for individual activists funk.climatejustice.global for podcasts and music