Talk:Myths - Revision history

Atlas667 at 01:35, 11 January 2018

2018-01-11T01:35:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:35, 11 January 2018
Line 857:		Line 857:
	isn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque] fallacy? --[[User:FML\|FML]] ([[User talk:FML\|talk]]) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)		isn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque] fallacy? --[[User:FML\|FML]] ([[User talk:FML\|talk]]) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

	== The Labor Theory Of Value (LTV) ==		= The Labor Theory Of Value (LTV) =

	This is kind of a side note since it isnt about BTC directly but refers to a statement on the page under the 6th item of the content list ("The value of bitcoins are based on how...).		This is kind of a side note since it isnt about BTC directly but refers to a statement on the page under the 6th item of the content list ("The value of bitcoins are based on how...).

Atlas667 at 01:30, 11 January 2018

2018-01-11T01:30:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:30, 11 January 2018
Line 856:		Line 856:

	isn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque] fallacy? --[[User:FML\|FML]] ([[User talk:FML\|talk]]) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)		isn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque] fallacy? --[[User:FML\|FML]] ([[User talk:FML\|talk]]) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

			== The Labor Theory Of Value (LTV) ==

			This is kind of a side note since it isnt about BTC directly but refers to a statement on the page under the 6th item of the content list ("The value of bitcoins are based on how...).

			The LTV isn't generally considered false, just that it doesn't apply to BTC because of how the network is set up.

			If X thing takes 100 person hours to produce then you need to be able to pay the worker(s) the amount that enables them to work those 100 person hours(for food, housing, etc...). So X will be worth 100 person hours plus some, else you wont be able to even produce X.

			BTC is not based on the cost of electricity to mine or the ratio of hash power to electricity cost to mine since it stems from the direct value of those resources which is the legal tender, not the cost of those resources in itself.

FML: /* The risk of quantum computers is also (...) */ new section

2015-10-30T15:55:04Z

The risk of quantum computers is also (...): new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:55, 30 October 2015
Line 848:		Line 848:
	==References==		==References==
	<references />		<references />

			== The risk of quantum computers is also (...) ==

			The quote:

			:The risk of quantum computers is also there for financial institutions, like banks, because they heavily rely on cryptography when doing transactions.

			isn't a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque Tu quoque] fallacy? --[[User:FML\|FML]] ([[User talk:FML\|talk]]) 15:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Luke-jr: /* Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology */ Remove altcoin mention

2014-08-13T04:13:10Z

Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology: Remove altcoin mention

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:13, 13 August 2014
Line 821:		Line 821:
	* ''more efficient mining gear does not reduce energy use of the bitcoin network. It will only raise the network [[difficulty]]''		* ''more efficient mining gear does not reduce energy use of the bitcoin network. It will only raise the network [[difficulty]]''
	* ''cheaper energy linearly increases mining energy use of the bitcoin network''		* ''cheaper energy linearly increases mining energy use of the bitcoin network''
	* ''the same conclusions apply to all [[proof of work]] based currencies ~~(i.e. [[Litecoin]])~~.''		* ''the same conclusions apply to all [[proof of work]] based currencies.''

	I'v estimated that bitcoin has the potential to increase world electricity consumption by 7% if really breaking through (meaning drawing equal to the USD in market cap). If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]		I'v estimated that bitcoin has the potential to increase world electricity consumption by 7% if really breaking through (meaning drawing equal to the USD in market cap). If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]

Sgornick: Add References subsection.

2013-04-25T22:28:56Z

Add References subsection.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:28, 25 April 2013
Line 845:		Line 845:

	I'd like to comment on the fact that new bitcoins are evenly and competitively distributed over a period of 140 years or so. We are still very much in the "early" stages of bitcoin and only just recently passed "the half way mark" with two more halvings in the next 8 years. The generation of 90% of all new bitcoins happens over the first 15 years or so. [[User:JulianTosh\|JulianTosh]] 2012-12-11 19:18 (GMT-8)		I'd like to comment on the fact that new bitcoins are evenly and competitively distributed over a period of 140 years or so. We are still very much in the "early" stages of bitcoin and only just recently passed "the half way mark" with two more halvings in the next 8 years. The generation of 90% of all new bitcoins happens over the first 15 years or so. [[User:JulianTosh\|JulianTosh]] 2012-12-11 19:18 (GMT-8)

			==References==
			<references />

Brenzi: /* Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology */

2013-04-25T09:35:11Z

Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:35, 25 April 2013
Line 825:		Line 825:
	I'v estimated that bitcoin has the potential to increase world electricity consumption by 7% if really breaking through (meaning drawing equal to the USD in market cap). If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]		I'v estimated that bitcoin has the potential to increase world electricity consumption by 7% if really breaking through (meaning drawing equal to the USD in market cap). If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]
	[[User:Brenzi\|Brenzi]] ([[User talk:Brenzi\|talk]]) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (GMT)		[[User:Brenzi\|Brenzi]] ([[User talk:Brenzi\|talk]]) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

			==Ratio of Capital Costs versus Electrical Costs==
			This interesting, but it wrongly assumes that the lifetime can be determined by amortisation time. Mining gear will be run as long as bitcoin rewards are higher than electricity cost. Amortisation is irrelevant for this aspect.




	== Categories and subcategories ==		== Categories and subcategories ==

Brenzi: /* Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology */

2013-04-22T21:23:33Z

Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:23, 22 April 2013
Line 823:		Line 823:
	* ''the same conclusions apply to all [[proof of work]] based currencies (i.e. [[Litecoin]]).''		* ''the same conclusions apply to all [[proof of work]] based currencies (i.e. [[Litecoin]]).''

	If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]		I'v estimated that bitcoin has the potential to increase world electricity consumption by 7% if really breaking through (meaning drawing equal to the USD in market cap). If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]
	[[User:Brenzi\|Brenzi]] ([[User talk:Brenzi\|talk]]) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (GMT)		[[User:Brenzi\|Brenzi]] ([[User talk:Brenzi\|talk]]) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

Brenzi: /* Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology */

2013-04-22T21:12:03Z

Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 22 April 2013
Line 815:		Line 815:

	[http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6459.msg98999#msg98999 More] --[[User:JohnTobey253\|JohnTobey253]] 04:49, 29 April 2011 (GMT)		[http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=6459.msg98999#msg98999 More] --[[User:JohnTobey253\|JohnTobey253]] 04:49, 29 April 2011 (GMT)

			This paragraph is not honest. Right now the energy consumption of mining might be raletively low, but it is strongly dependant on BTC value because of economical basics. Please add something like the following:

			''Energy consumption for mining has a high correlation with bitcoin exchange rate to fiat currency. Because variable costs of [[mining]] are dominated by electricity price, the economic equilibrium for the mining rate is reached when global electricity costs for mining approximate the value of [[mining]] reward plus [[transaction_fee \| transaction fees]]. ''
			* ''more efficient mining gear does not reduce energy use of the bitcoin network. It will only raise the network [[difficulty]]''
			* ''cheaper energy linearly increases mining energy use of the bitcoin network''
			* ''the same conclusions apply to all [[proof of work]] based currencies (i.e. [[Litecoin]]).''

			If you're not convinced, please come and [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181759.0 discuss with me]
			[[User:Brenzi\|Brenzi]] ([[User talk:Brenzi\|talk]]) 21:12, 22 April 2013 (GMT)

	== Categories and subcategories ==		== Categories and subcategories ==

JulianTosh: /* Early adopter advantage */ new section

2012-12-12T03:18:54Z

Early adopter advantage: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:18, 12 December 2012
Line 825:		Line 825:

	--[[User:Atheros\|Atheros]] 03:46, 11 November 2011 (GMT)		--[[User:Atheros\|Atheros]] 03:46, 11 November 2011 (GMT)

			== Early adopter advantage ==

			I'd like to comment on the fact that new bitcoins are evenly and competitively distributed over a period of 140 years or so. We are still very much in the "early" stages of bitcoin and only just recently passed "the half way mark" with two more halvings in the next 8 years. The generation of 90% of all new bitcoins happens over the first 15 years or so. [[User:JulianTosh\|JulianTosh]] 2012-12-11 19:18 (GMT-8)

PeterSurda: /* Fractional reserve banking with Bitcoin is fundamentally different */

2011-11-16T08:16:31Z

Fractional reserve banking with Bitcoin is fundamentally different

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:16, 16 November 2011
Line 792:		Line 792:

	Atheros, your quotes do not address my points at all, they skip over them. From this you incorrectly conclude that they disagree with my arguments.		Atheros, your quotes do not address my points at all, they skip over them. From this you incorrectly conclude that they disagree with my arguments.

			In your example, since Gavin, Cameron and Satoshi cannot at the same time buy anything worth more than 100 Bitcoins without using their account balances as a medium of exchange (thus elevating it into a status of money substitute), it means the money supply is only 100 Bitcoins. That's the purpose of the term money supply, it measures how much can be spent.

	Your is the definition that is not useful in economic theories. Money supply measures the amount that is available for payment. Not the sum of zero-maturity debt instruments. Absent the requirement to be usable as a medium of exchange, it cannot be used in calculations of inflation or money velocity. You practically invented your own economic theory.		Your is the definition that is not useful in economic theories. Money supply measures the amount that is available for payment. Not the sum of zero-maturity debt instruments. Absent the requirement to be usable as a medium of exchange, it cannot be used in calculations of inflation or money velocity. You practically invented your own economic theory.
Line 799:		Line 801:
	* The reason why demand deposits are included in the money supply is because they are used as a generally accepted medium of exchange.		* The reason why demand deposits are included in the money supply is because they are used as a generally accepted medium of exchange.

	--[[User:PeterSurda\|PeterSurda]] 07:09, 16 November 2011 (GMT)		--[[User:PeterSurda\|PeterSurda]] 08:16, 16 November 2011 (GMT)

	= Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology =		= Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology =