Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency and Blockchain Discussion Thread

[willow_hiller]

If you have, say, some bitcoins mined with green energy and certified, and others not, then as fractional coins are traded, and then those fractions united to trade as whole or larger-fraction coins, you'll end up with green and non-green coins and fractions all jumbled together.

That's how SRECs work right now. All of the clean and dirty kWh get jumbled together on the power grid, and are transacted freely. The SRECs don't get attached to the electrons in any way, and there's no way to differentiate a unit of electricity generated from renewables from one that's not. But after all energy and SREC transactions are done, whoever holds the SRECs has the right to say that their energy is derived from clean sources.

 

[ByeByeJohnny]

Crypto has some seriously unflattering aspects but I don't think rewarding the criminal element is one of them. Cash is the currency of choice for criminals because it is far less traceable than crypto. Crypto leaves it's fingerprint wherever it goes and it is a very public fingerprint that never fades or goes away. It's called a public ledger. Cash changes hands without this tracer and is the currency of choice amongst criminal elements who want to leave no trace.

Given this is well-known, I'm surprised there are still people pushing the false narrative that crypto has a stronger link with criminal behavior than the actual tool of choice and the most widely accepted currency for criminals around the globe, the US greenback.

Yeah, it's weird how all these hackers, blackmailers and other thugs are demanding to get paid in bank transfers. Obviously all the media reports seemingly saying 100% of these crimes are demanding to get paid in crypto are wrong. With crypto so traceable it's good to know all those criminals are getting caught and ending up behind bars.

 

[daniel]

That's how SRECs work right now. All of the clean and dirty kWh get jumbled together on the power grid, and are transacted freely. The SRECs don't get attached to the electrons in any way, and there's no way to differentiate a unit of electricity generated from renewables from one that's not. But after all energy and SREC transactions are done, whoever holds the SRECs has the right to say that their energy is derived from clean sources.

The holders of SRECs have the legal right to say that their energy is derived from clean sources, because that's what the law says. Their actual moral claim is that they supported the creation of sustainable energy production or they supported planting trees to capture carbon. In some cases they've paid a landowner to not cut down some trees. Trees which maybe wouldn't have been cut down anyway. Or different trees were cut down.

I'm just really not convinced that SRECs and carbon offsets actually do anything to help the environment. And indeed, carbon emissions just keep going up.

I think that SRECs and carbon offsets are a scam and a shell game to make it seem like the government is doing something while actually allowing businesses to keep polluting. And to avoid taxing carbon so that polluters pay the real cost of their pollution.

 

[willow_hiller]

Trees which maybe wouldn't have been cut down anyway. Or different trees were cut down.

I'm just really not convinced that SRECs and carbon offsets actually do anything to help the environment. And indeed, carbon emissions just keep going up.

I don't know if you can compare SRECs to those anti-logging carbon offsets. With the logging offsets, as you said, there's no guarantee that purchasing a certain amount of land will stop loggers from just moving to another forest.

But SRECs do make a difference to the amount of solar energy capacity installed, which increases the grids overall renewable mix without causing a similar counterfactual problem. Because I knew I could sell the SRECs from my solar panel system, it enabled me to install more solar on my roof than I would have otherwise. The extra money in my pocket is a direct incentive to install more solar capacity, not just a token that allows polluters to pollute more.

And in the case of some sort of renewable token for mining cryptocurrency with renewable energy, it works at the supply and demand level. No need for any government rubber stamp. Customers who transact with companies that mine crypto will be willing to pay a premium for the knowledge that their transactions are run with renewables. That extra demand means those companies can charge a premium, and that premium means they can afford to pay more for renewable energy sources. And that increased demand for renewable energy sources means utilities can afford to install more solar/wind capacity.

 

[daniel]

And yet with all that, our carbon emissions continue to rise.

As for crypto, whose main use is ransom and extortion, I really doubt the criminals will care whether the coins they steal via their ransomeware are mined ethically or not. Or that there will be a two-tier exchange rate for ethically-mined vs conventionally-mined coins. And because of crypto's distributed ledger system, the transaction fees will go equally to ethical and unethical operators.

Unless, of course, you create yet another cryptocurrency which has a built-in green-energy certification , which would require a certification agency, which goes against the whole anti-regulation philosophy.

Crypto will be dirty until dirty electricity is more expensive than renewable energy. Crypto miners will always operate wherever electricity is cheapest. Or until people give up on it, stop buying it, and the price falls enough that it's no longer economical to mine and transaction fees are so high that nobody buys or sells it any more. I doubt this last will happen because there's always someone willing to buy in the hopes of being able to sell for more to somebody else.

 

[Artful Dodger]

Further to Elon's "broken heart" tweet this evening, this story might be important context:

Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda Auctions his First Non-Fungible Token – Bitcoin News

Mike Shinoda, a founding member of the rock band Linkin Park, has auctioned his first non-fungible token (NFT) for a charitable cause.

news.bitcoin.com

So turns out one of the members of Linkin Park is literally trading in NFTs. Imma throw the long ball here: NFTs 4 TSLA anti-counterfeiting measures.

Hey, a guy can dream, amirite?

EDIT: Well, maybe not now...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1400645833150840835

 

[Artful Dodger]

SMR adds some Doge speculation onto today's tweets: (including a reference to the recent creation of a Dogecoin wallet with $1.5B USD)

 

[lascavarian]

FBI director Wray is comparing ransomware threat to 9/11 threat. Not a good look for crypto.

Given no central controls, miners will talk cooperation but by design they have no incentives/abilities to shutoff bad actors.

Clint Watts is suggesting one option to combat ransomware is to take digital currencies offline.

 

[wdolson]

Crypto currencies have made it very easy for ransomware people to operate.

It highlights the problems with any libertarian idea. When there is no regulatory structure and everyone is an actor with good intentions things work fine, but without guard rails one or a few bad actors can throw the entire system into chaos. Regulatory agencies are a pain in the backside for people who only have good intentions, but they are necessary to keep the people who would do anything, including burning down the house to get ahead.

In Psychological terms studies have found that about 2% of the population are born psychopaths. People with no conscience and lack empathy. Only a few populations lack them. Some psychopaths end up in prison, but about half learn to stay out of trouble and many of those gravitate towards positions of power. They figure out how to game the system either without breaking the law or they figure out how to break the law and get away with it. Some psychopaths are violent, but others just like to torture others in non-violent ways. Ransomware is great for these types, they can put people through hell and make millions doing it.

We will always have some people who really don't understand what the common good is. They can learn to fake things like empathy, but they really don't grok it. My partner has done domestic violence perpetrator group counseling for years. Most of her clients are there by court order to avoid jail. Over the years she's turned a lot of guys around because most of them are neurologically normal, but have learned some bad coping skills in relationships. Once they start to trust the group they take to it like ducks to water because they really don't want to be the jerk of the family.

From time to time she rejects some people for treatment because in her entry interviews she determines they are psychopaths. Before she went out on her own she was working in another agency that never really screened anyone like she does. One of her groups had a guy she was pretty sure was a psychopath. He put up and act to be like the other guys, but there was a creepy vibe to him that put everyone's teeth on edge. After group some of the guys would just hang around until the psychopath left. One week he didn't show up and it was because he was under arrest again for putting a woman in the hospital.

 

[lascavarian]

It highlights the problems with any libertarian idea. When there is no regulatory structure and everyone is an actor with good intentions things work fine, but without guard rails one or a few bad actors can throw the entire system into chaos. Regulatory agencies are a pain in the backside for people who only have good intentions, but they are necessary to keep the people who would do anything, including burning down the house to get ahead.

Great comment. The libertarian political philosophy adds a lot of energy to crypto IMO.

A system with checks and balances and oversight is a pain and frustrating but there is a necessary purpose to it.

It has not taken very long for bad actors to find a perfect home in crypto. Crypto is going to be the cause of a lot of pain IMO.

 

[wdolson]

Great comment. The libertarian political philosophy adds a lot of energy to crypto IMO.

A system with checks and balances and oversight is a pain and frustrating but there is a necessary purpose to it.

It has not taken very long for bad actors to find a perfect home in crypto. Crypto is going to be the cause of a lot of pain IMO.

I understand the appeal of libertarian ideals. Especially for people who are basically honest, try not to do harm, and get annoyed with bureaucracy.

I was on the fringes of the Libertarian Party for a while. I eventually came to the conclusion that social libertarianism (ie if someone is doing something that does not put me at risk or directly harm me, it's none of my business) is doable in many situations, other forms of libertarianism unfortunately devolve into Lord of the Flies as soon as the bad actors figure out how to mess with it.

I watched the internet devolve from a marketplace of ideas and a place where people could find others who wanted to talk about their interests and hobbies to a place dominated by a relative handful of mega corporations trying to sell us stuff and some criminals trying to steal our information and/or our money. The good stuff is there, but you have to be careful to steer around all the bad stuff.

Back when Alan Greenspan was Fed chair, an investment analyst who foresaw the 2008 economic crash happening found Greenspan in his favorite restaurant and tried to warn him. Greenspan, who was an ardent libertarian (he dated Ayn Rand for a while) didn't believe him and said nobody would do those things that put the financial system at that level of risk. After the 2008 crash Greenspan was dumbfounded that the bad actors had done exactly that.

 

[lascavarian]

I was on the fringes of the Libertarian Party for a while. I eventually came to the conclusion that social libertarianism (ie if someone is doing something that does not put me at risk or directly harm me, it's none of my business) is doable in many situations, other forms of libertarianism unfortunately devolve into Lord of the Flies as soon as the bad actors figure out how to mess with it.

I also gave it a hard look. Lots of efficiencies. Local focus. Interesting ideas. Lots of liberty. However completely incapable of a coherent approach to public health across borders and boundaries. No allowance for any centralized controls for pandemics that hitch a ride on the wind (birds).

Crypto seems to be built on this philosophy and brings with it troubling/problematical weaknesses.

interesting comment on Greenspan.

 

[daniel]

As I understand libertarianism, it's basically "Leave me alone!" The subset of libertarians who are nationalistic support having military forces and paying taxes for that, but not for anything else. The libertarian philosophy is "Why should I have to pay for anything that benefits somebody else?"

There are many government services that benefit society and that without which society cannot function. Garbage collection, fire fighting, traffic lights, air traffic control... the list is unending. Libertarians want voluntary neighborhood associations to do everything, but there are too many essential services that cannot be operated locally. Libertarians fail to understand how societies function, and they believe they can live within a society without being a part of it. For this reason I view libertarianism as the politics of selfishness with a super-size helping of ignorance.

We do have a responsibility to care for each other, and that's precisely what libertarians object to.

Crypto is libertarian monetary philosophy: No regulation, no management, no protection from fraud or outright theft, no responsibility to act like a member of society. And no understanding of how currencies function and how they interact with and affect the economy of a country.

 

[heltok]

As I understand libertarianism, it's basically "Leave me alone!" The subset of libertarians who are nationalistic support having military forces and paying taxes for that, but not for anything else. The libertarian philosophy is "Why should I have to pay for anything that benefits somebody else?"

Libertariansm is multidimensional and grayscale. But basically it boils down to the non-aggression principle(NAP). It states that it’s bad to initiate violence. Sometimes an uncessesary bad, but still bad. Then libertarians disagree on when this bad can be permissible.

There are some who are Anarcho-capitalists who take it all the way, for learning about what these people believe I recommend this book:

Amazon.com

(first 20min can easily be skipped if you don’t care about which arguments are valid and not)
It is also a good primer for the main NAP arguments and contra arguments. Basically 0% tax.

Then there are the Minarchists who accept a minimal viable government, for example for Military, Police and legal system. Where the police will protect people from initiation of violence but not for victim-less crimes such as personal use of recreational drugs. Like 1-4% takes.

Then there are the sliding scale of libertarianism from classical libertarianism to modern libertarianism with an increasing amount of government services. Roads, firefighters, schools, hospitals etc. Taxes 4-20%.

Then from there there are the social-libertarian to moderates to social democrates where governments gets an increasing amount of wealth transfer, social benefits, culture etc. Taxes 20-50%

From there we have countries who start to restrict the freedom of movement, limiting private ownership etc, tax 50-”100%”.

So this is a sliding scale. Most people in the west take freedom of movement for granted, while people in North Korea and China lack this. Most peope in the west think government should take care of military, police, legal system, firefighting etc. Most of these also think the state should take care of hospitals, education etc, but some think that schools and hospitals are better run privately. Very few think that no state is needed at all, but these exists, see the video above. Some people think that government should provide news, museums, art etc, some people think they should not, this varies a lot between countries.


Bitcoin grew from the crypto-anarchists-movement, but had a lot of initial support from the classical liberterians(often goldbugs, but many gold bugs were very against Bitcoin, many still are(Schiff etc)). Bitcoin is very attractive for anarchists and can be a threat to some states, specially those very reliant on printing fiat currency as a source of revenue for the government. Most people tend to not want to surrender their wealth to the state and given the option might choose to store/use their purchasing power in a less inflationary currency, which could lead to a huge shortfall in revenue for the state. It is also attractive for people who want to do some things that the government forbids, for example buy drugs, weapons, porn, bibles, Mein Kampf etc. This could potentially destabilize some societies.

Imo Bitcoin is agnostic to most ideologies. It can be used by communists and anarchists alike. But it will give individuals freedoms that are very hard to take away, which some less libertarian systems might be against. Unfortuneatly the cat is out of the box now, there is no taking it away. Only way to censor Bitcoin is to censor the internet, which maybe North Korea and China can pull off, but I don’t think many countries in the west have enough political power to pull off.

 

[electricar]

Libertariansm is multidimensional and grayscale. But basically it boils down to the non-aggression principle(NAP). It states that it’s bad to initiate violence. Sometimes an uncessesary bad, but still bad. Then libertarians disagree on when this bad can be permissible.

There are some who are Anarcho-capitalists who take it all the way, for learning about what these people believe I recommend this book:

Amazon.com

(first 20min can easily be skipped if you don’t care about which arguments are valid and not)
It is also a good primer for the main NAP arguments and contra arguments. Basically 0% tax.

Then there are the Minarchists who accept a minimal viable government, for example for Military, Police and legal system. Where the police will protect people from initiation of violence but not for victim-less crimes such as personal use of recreational drugs. Like 1-4% takes.

Then there are the sliding scale of libertarianism from classical libertarianism to modern libertarianism with an increasing amount of government services. Roads, firefighters, schools, hospitals etc. Taxes 4-20%.

Then from there there are the social-libertarian to moderates to social democrates where governments gets an increasing amount of wealth transfer, social benefits, culture etc. Taxes 20-50%

From there we have countries who start to restrict the freedom of movement, limiting private ownership etc, tax 50-”100%”.

So this is a sliding scale. Most people in the west take freedom of movement for granted, while people in North Korea and China lack this. Most peope in the west think government should take care of military, police, legal system, firefighting etc. Most of these also think the state should take care of hospitals, education etc, but some think that schools and hospitals are better run privately. Very few think that no state is needed at all, but these exists, see the video above. Some people think that government should provide news, museums, art etc, some people think they should not, this varies a lot between countries.


Bitcoin grew from the crypto-anarchists-movement, but had a lot of initial support from the classical liberterians(often goldbugs, but many gold bugs were very against Bitcoin, many still are(Schiff etc)). Bitcoin is very attractive for anarchists and can be a threat to some states, specially those very reliant on printing fiat currency as a source of revenue for the government. Most people tend to not want to surrender their wealth to the state and given the option might choose to store/use their purchasing power in a less inflationary currency, which could lead to a huge shortfall in revenue for the state. It is also attractive for people who want to do some things that the government forbids, for example buy drugs, weapons, porn, bibles, Mein Kampf etc. This could potentially destabilize some societies.

Imo Bitcoin is agnostic to most ideologies. It can be used by communists and anarchists alike. But it will give individuals freedoms that are very hard to take away, which some less libertarian systems might be against. Unfortuneatly the cat is out of the box now, there is no taking it away. Only way to censor Bitcoin is to censor the internet, which maybe North Korea and China can pull off, but I don’t think many countries in the west have enough political power to pull off.

Never say never. The western nations are slipping toward authoritarianism ( although it is unclear whether the left or the right will prevail ) and their treasuries money printing presses are running at warp speed. One way or another The State will deal with crypto at some point.

 

[willow_hiller]

In speaking of cryptocurrency ransoms, this is an unexpected turn of events in the Colonial Pipeline case: First on CNN: US recovers millions in cryptocurrency paid to Colonial Pipeline ransomware hackers

One of the sources noted that helping recover money paid to ransomware actors is certainly an area where the US government can provide assistance but noted that success varies dramatically and largely depends on whether there are holes in the attackers' system that can be identified and exploited.

In some cases, US officials can find the ransomware operators and "own" their network within hours of an attack, one of the sources explained, noting that allows relevant agencies to monitor the actor's communications and potentially identify additional key players in the group responsible.

So government oversight is possible... via FBI-sponsored hacking of cryptocurrency wallets?

 

[JRP3]

SpaceX Dragon CRS-22 Mission Delivered The First Ethereum Crypto Node To The Space Station For SpaceChain

“We are thrilled in bringing the Ethereum platform to space and validating why a decentralized satellite infrastructure created with space technologies is vital to realizing the full potential of blockchain applications,” stated Zee Zheng, SpaceChain co-founder and CEO.

www.tesmanian.com

Among the cargo that the CRS-22 mission delivered is the first Ethereum crypto node that will operate at the Space Station. Ethereum is a peer-to-peer cryptocurrency that is distributed by a network of computers running software, known as nodes, that keep track of transaction data in a blockchain. The Ethereum node belongs to SpaceChain, an organization that is building the world’s first open-source blockchain based satellite network designed for decentralized infrastructures/applications.

 

[StateoftheArt]

Notice how this comment quickly diverts to discussion away from the expanding crime around crypto.

Please just keep looking at "cash" and describe it as a problem. Try to make it appear that "cash" is a larger problem than ransomware crypto attacks, yeah that's the ticket.

Just days ago the East Coast of the US was nearing panic as criminal elements ransomed an entire pipeline. Of course they chose cash as their method of payment ---- NOT.

The so called "public ledger" is a joke. It does nothing but provide cover for the ponzi. No payment for this ransomware will be recovered because crypto is so easy to use for theft. Crypto moves in a flash and has no problem with fraudulent credentials. Poof!

There is no central authority to administer controls or censure bad actors. Criminally delicious!

LOL. Btw, nobody is diverting the discussion. It is called making a detailed analysis/comparison to determine what is simply FUD. . You gotta do it with TSLA and anything where huge global establishments are threatened by the existence of certain technologies. Basically, you have to do it with every headline for just about anything now. The US federal reserve note is the king (by a country mile, there is no making it "appear" that way) for use in crime. It is joke comparison but good for virtue signaling FUD. It is just that simple.

Federal Officials Recover Bitcoin Ransom From Colonial Pipeline Attack

Colonial paid $4.4 million in bitcoin after its systems fell victim to a ransomware attack last month.

www.coindesk.com

Tbh, the "facts" around this whole hack doesn't jive but that is whole different topic. Nevertheless, the recovery does serve the purpose to expose btc FUD.

 

[StateoftheArt]

Back to this FBLIE story...I want them prove this. There are only 3 ways they recovered the btc:

1. Hackers in custody and gave up keys in plea deal

2. Hackers sent BTC to an exchange

3. Govt was behind the hack (gas shortage fears/inflation distraction, cyber attack fears, and slam/FUD BTC)


The whole hack made almost zero sense. Russia always the same scapegoat. I call BS on this whole thing and think the probability is #3.

 

[heltok]

Over the years there has been so many times when I have heard newcomers who have never used Bitcoin having a very strong conviction that Bitcoin will never grow large because of reasons. Often the arguments are pretty much
Bitcoin no workie because:
1. Deflation
2. States will ban it
3. Not backed by anything
4. Crime
5. Bitcoin 2.0 will replace it
6. Goods on silkroad/etc nominated in USD
7. Gold is better
8. Consume too much energy

etc etc.

I used to offer everyone on another message board free 0.01BTC if they just downloaded electrum and pasted their generated address. It was pretty crazy to see so many posters arguing why bitcoin was a horrible investment yet refusing to even receive free money.

Imo if you are gonna have a strong opinion about something at least try it first. Instead of wasting 1hour debating it, waste 5min trying it. Ok, now unfortuneately it is prohibitly expensive to try it, but for all the people who failed to do this between 2013-2019 but still had a strong opinion during this time, imo consider what is wrong with you and leave the debate to the people who are sane...

See what papa Elon is doing, he teaches his kid to set up a dogecoin mining rig. Why? To learn what’s it all about. Once you have done this you can enter the intellectual arena, try your arguments, be right sometimes, be wrong sometimes and be less wrong over time. Until then, leave it to the adults.