Topic: IS ENERGY THE CURRENCY OF THE FUTURE? YES !, AND THE BITCOIN IS IT’S FIRST COIN (Read 609 times)

I really liked the idea of Power companies itself can go for bitcoin mining as they are the manufacture of power so they will be getting the power more cheaper or we can say free also.

This way i have got an idea of wind power energy runners who are running in loss we can contact them and tell about bitcoin mining as they are not getting much revenue from wind power energy so they can go for bitcoin mining with the same wind power energy.

Yes bitcoin will get early bird advantage when we will be talking about crypto currencies after some decades. Yes no doubt that the bitcoin is world’s first crypto currency and the user base is amazing in terms of energy, support & user friendliness. Yes there will be many coins which will compete bitcoin with the same elements that of bitcoin but still bitcoin will remain major crypto currency. There are 1000+ alt coins at the moment and this number will keep rising but bitcoin will remain as big boss.

Hi, and thanks for all your comments.

I see most of you think that cryptocurrencies as energy currency are far away in time. However i have to insist that energy banks are already in use. The very first moment electric companies allowed users to inject energy generated by rooftop photovoltaic panels to the grid, energy banks have been created. It's already happening as an unregulated energy market, and it will be just a matter of time until they figure out other things they can do. Cryptocurrencies will be natural progression. I see there are other commdodities more valuable than energy but energy is universally useful, even though not that scarce and it's value is constant. Tie energy to bitcoin mining is next natural step.

My point is: If Energy Banks progress the way I think, shouldn't be the cryptocurrency community at the front in order to help regulating it? Are we going to let governments dirty hands and overvalued printed money take over the energy exchange too? let them corrupt the most pure commodity in the universe?

Actually, the percentage of water that we, humans, consume is just a 1% of the total water in the Earth. It'll not get scarce unless the whole ocean and other water bodies becomes polluted. While I doubt that it'll happen, shortly after that incident, humans would die as our environment is already dying at that point.

I don't think energy would be that scarce that it can be traded into other goods or become a currency. A lot of things can produce energy. All of them are natural, wind, water, thermal, geothermal, etc. The supplies of those things are infinite and the only reason why would those be scarce would be because the whole world is already dying.

I doubt that energy alone will be the future currency. If you are really optimistic in natural resources then try water or clean air. With the world getting polluted day by day it's not unknown to the many that clean air, clean water etc. are getting more scarce.

While energy is mandatory for survival, water and air are more important, an di would bet my money rather on those then on energy, which we can create/produce more easily.

Bitcoins are the opposite of fiat money in every way.  Bitcoins have a limited supply, dollars have an infinite supply. Bitcoins reward savers and reduce spending, dollars reward spending and punish savers.  By design Bitcoins should appreciate over time, by design dollars will loose value over time, etc.

And most importantly for this discussion:  It takes massive amounts of energy/work/electricity/hashing to produce/mine/create Bitcoins but dollars are created "out of thin air" by the push of a button on a computer by your local banker.  Bitcoins are created by the energy intensive Bitcoin mining process, dollars are created instantly every time a bank loans out dollars that have been loaned to them.  This is mainly because Bitcoins represent value and dollars represent debt.

Bitcoins are hard to create, dollars are very easy to create.

Now Bitcoins represent energy/work that has been expended in their creation.  Over the time Bitcoins have existed a huge amount of electricity has been expended to create them.  So I have to agree with the author to a certain extent:  Bitcoins represent energy - but they represent energy and natural resources that have been burned up.

Bitcoins do not represent potential energy or natural resources any more than the value of any other currency does.

In other words you can buy just as much energy/work/goods/services/labor with $100 worth of Bitcoins as you can with $100.  There is nothing special about Bitcoins when it comes to representing future work (except they should appreciate whereas the dollar will, by design, depreciate).

The author did bring up one interesting scenario:  power companies could use excess production to mine Bitcoins.  Of course they would first have to invest in all the Bitcoin mining equipment and pay off that investment but once that is done they are in a very good position to make a lot of profit mining Bitcoins because their energy cost is the wholesale cost of production.  All the other Bitcoins miners are at a disadvantage relative to the power companies because they have to pay the retail price for electricity.  

Now currently the cost of burning resources to run power plants with excess capacity is just passed on to the consumer, so, if a power company made Bitcoins during the time they had excess capacity this profit center could theoretically be used to reduced the price of energy for the average consumer.

So that looks like a good idea.

Energy or some form of resource distribution in a currency is most likely going to end up as the main currency of the future, however there is more than likely going to be a different currency that will break out and become the biggest currency throughout the world that isn't Bitcoin.

Carbon credits, energy credits, something like that are probably going to become bigger and more common in the future.

I haven't heard about anything like decentralization of energy, but yes decentralization can turned out as beneficial for different fields like decentralized hosting, decentralized file storage, decentralize social media etc and many altcoins/ projects have been developed under this concepts and are in testing phases right now.

It's possible, but it is probably a while away.

It would encourage a cleaner world probably, but I doubt the current world powers would approve, because much of their power comes from their control of the oil industry and the status of the petrodollar.

It is quite a phenomenon to see these new crypto currencies unfold, but you could say it's wasteful really. It's fine when they reach mainstream usage like Bitcoin, LTC, etc.. but so many alt-coins will drain power, die and have contributed nothing in return. The flip side would be - if it was able to become more efficient (cheaper) than the VISA/payment processor networks, it would be very useful.

Hi ev'rybody

I'm not much into bitcoins, (but i managed to get some) but I think that cryptocurrencies are a quite interesting phenomenon.

So I'd appreciate some feedback about this topic in my blog.

http://estaciontrend.blogspot.com/2016/09/is-energy-currency-of-future-yes-and.html

I really think there is a descentralizing trend. Not only currencies, but also energy, and public services.