Well, most people have the opinion of most cryptocurrencies being rather unsustainable. It's an opinion that we should respect. We don't have to agree with it, but we surely do have to respect it.
Most people have the opinion that PakistanHockeyfan does not know most people or their opinions. 
Topic: Bitcoin is unsustainable, according to Vice (Read 4852 times)
Well, most people have the opinion of most cryptocurrencies being rather unsustainable. It's an opinion that we should respect. We don't have to agree with it, but we surely do have to respect it.
Hmm maybe I just roll in different circles but I've never heard that opinion. I would respect anyone stating their own opinion, just for that as it is.. but in this case.. where is that person or the "most people" you refer to? I don't see an argument to respect here.
Well, most people have the opinion of most cryptocurrencies being rather unsustainable. It's an opinion that we should respect. We don't have to agree with it, but we surely do have to respect it.
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
If Google was used by a handful of people, and expanding that userbase was improbable (because all of its data centers, combined, allowed just 3 searches per second), you'd probably have a point.
Doesnt matter because only free market can decide whether something is worth the effort, in our example power consumption of Bitcoin mining. I could say cars are waste and dangerous for our planet as well, but free market sees it differently.
"Free market decides"? Free market decides by imposing draconian fucking regulations when shit gets bad. Price is not the only mechanism available to the invisible hand. Cars are regulated to death: emissions, safety, speed, must have license to drive -- EVERYTHING.
Nice choice of example
not to mention, it's not exactly a free market the one of bitcoin, with all the manipulation going on, still more free than the crap you have with fiat
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
If Google was used by a handful of people, and expanding that userbase was improbable (because all of its data centers, combined, allowed just 3 searches per second), you'd probably have a point.
Doesnt matter because only free market can decide whether something is worth the effort, in our example power consumption of Bitcoin mining. I could say cars are waste and dangerous for our planet as well, but free market sees it differently.
"Free market decides"? Free market decides by imposing draconian fucking regulations when shit gets bad. Price is not the only mechanism available to the invisible hand. Cars are regulated to death: emissions, safety, speed, must have license to drive -- EVERYTHING.
Nice choice of example
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
If Google was used by a handful of people, and expanding that userbase was improbable (because all of its data centers, combined, allowed just 3 searches per second), you'd probably have a point.
Doesnt matter because only free market can decide whether something is worth the effort, in our example power consumption of Bitcoin mining. I could say cars are waste and dangerous for our planet as well, but free market sees it differently.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior.
You missed a few letters 
unsustainable
I wrote exactly what I wanted. Please do check the context. Stable - unstable. Also, see the previous post to which I was responding.
But thank you for that, Grammar Nazi Man.
Dear Friend!
The Vice article in question addresses Bitcoin's unsustainability, not how hilariously unstable it is. The word "unstable," you might be amused to know, occurs exactly 0 (zero) times in the article.
Why, you ask?
Because that's not what the article is about.
In the future, consider familiarizing yourself with such seminal economics tomes as "Go, Dog. Go!" before offering us your learned, cromulent critiques.
Yes "dear friend" but as you can see "again" I was answering to the previous post put by another user, not the initial post.
The post above yours is another non-sequitur-spewing signature ad spammer, like yourself. Bumping his shitty post count. Possibly your alt.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior.
You missed a few letters unsustainable
I wrote exactly what I wanted. Please do check the context. Stable - unstable. Also, see the previous post to which I was responding.
But thank you for that, Grammar Nazi Man.
Dear Friend!
The Vice article in question addresses Bitcoin's unsustainability, not how hilariously unstable it is. The word "unstable," you might be amused to know, occurs exactly 0 (zero) times in the article.
Why, you ask?
Because that's not what the article is about.
In the future, consider familiarizing yourself with such seminal economics tomes as "Go, Dog. Go!" before offering us your learned, cromulent critiques.
Yes "dear friend" but as you can see "again" I was answering to the previous post put by another user, not the initial post.
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
If Google was used by a handful of people, and expanding that userbase was improbable (because all of its data centers, combined, allowed just 3 searches per second), you'd probably have a point.
This is a dumb article. Who really cares about the power consumption of Bitcoin ? I'm sure that Google consume more power than us. But is Google "unsustainable" ? No.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior. And seeing as how VICE is all about gossip I don't think it's the best place to get your advice for your investments.
There is a huge difference between unstable and unsustainable. The article says that bitcoins consume a lot of energy and electricity which is not true and miners do earn from the effort they give in with regards to the electricity they pay for.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior.
You missed a few letters unsustainable
I wrote exactly what I wanted. Please do check the context. Stable - unstable. Also, see the previous post to which I was responding.
But thank you for that, Grammar Nazi Man.
Dear Friend!
The Vice article in question addresses Bitcoin's unsustainability, not how hilariously unstable it is. The word "unstable," you might be amused to know, occurs exactly 0 (zero) times in the article.
Why, you ask?
Because that's not what the article is about.
In the future, consider familiarizing yourself with such seminal economics tomes as "Go, Dog. Go!" before offering us your learned, cromulent critiques.
Bitcoin is atleast not a some sort of centralized ponzi seem like e-gold in past so bitcoin will be functioning whatever value it will have in future.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior.
You missed a few letters unsustainable
I wrote exactly what I wanted. Please do check the context. Stable - unstable. Also, see the previous post to which I was responding.
But thank you for that, Grammar Nazi Man.
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior.
You missed a few letters unsustainable
Unstable, yes. but what currency IS stable? This is a normal behavior. And seeing as how VICE is all about gossip I don't think it's the best place to get your advice for your investments.
No one can really predict what is going to happen to Bitcoin. I would say it is sustainable, just a bit unstable.
IMO, the Vice doesn't actually understands how bitcoin works and how its being changed to surpass certain flaws. The Blocksize increase is bound to lower the transaction fees and this will turn BTC even more attractive
Exactly. It's a long way until mining will end, and probably most of us won't be here to witness it. We should focus on the here and now.
I think they're missing the spot: we are still at the mining era.
This era will last until the 21 million bitcoins come to exist, onwards the tx fees will dictate the market and the hashing power will most likely be way lower.
Blocksize, compression, light chains, whatever scalability solution will come, will handle the tx rate issues.
This era will last until the 21 million bitcoins come to exist, onwards the tx fees will dictate the market and the hashing power will most likely be way lower.
Blocksize, compression, light chains, whatever scalability solution will come, will handle the tx rate issues.
That's an easy one. We sure may wonder what will happen when this is over, that's a good question, but let's be honest, I don't care about the answer. Really. And nobody here should. We'll be gone when this happens.
The thing is you can die before the era of mining ends,but will you sell your bitcoins or give them to the childs or parent ,the same way with those who have gold... do you think they dont care if it will being worth more or less in the future?Knowing that their investment may turn into a good life to the childs and family ,im sure it makes a difference,being alive or not,you can affect family life ,suppose bitcoin hit the 2000 dollars and you had a good ammount in possesion.
Jump to: