Ya, that's what I thought. It's a petro currency.
All energy production is relative to petro. Even solar and wind subsist on petro infrastructure. In turn driving up energy costs. Which remains part of the equation for the good.
There are no free rides. It's simply dishonest to claim a new protocol changes how humanity produces and consumes energy. The infrastructure and requisites remain untouched.
I encourage you to learn why green sources are not (except nuclear). And why they increase energy costs and or lower grid stability and reliability.
This is a dishonest argument at best. You're skirting true definitions and intending to beguile through abstractions. Yes, it takes natural resources to produce solar panels and various energy production methods. I understand this and don't disagree, but it's a one time cost and suggesting that after it's mined there is further reliance upon anything petro-pegged is dishonest at best and I think you know this. I've run out of faith that you're arguing in good faith. Your aim is to dupe people with pure abstraction at best. I like how you just ignore the part where I point out the trends of PoS though. That's just laughable.
I simply asked you to research more info about these power generation systems and the grid implications. Most sources either lie or ignore it. Why is that?
Here's a simple question for you. What happens to grid stability, reliability, and energy costs once 50% is solar or wind? Did you even know the early adopters got free infrastructure rides? Might this fact give the false impression of lower costs which are hidden behind preexisting infrastructure? What changes at 50% demarcation?
I'm not playing ring around the rosie with you. Saying BTC is a petro-pegged asset is ludicrous and I think you know that. This is a semantics argument at best. If everything is pegged to petro$, there is zero point in making that the brunt of your argument. I'm not going to give up the frame to your retarded treasure hunt either.
You're traveling way too far away from the original argument here. Go play retard with someone else.
Hello? I thought we were having an exchange? Why dodge once it's obvious things are not going your way? Are you not interested in understanding my point of view? I bent over backwards to ensure I understood yours. And was polite doing so. To which you replied that I'm dishonest. Which is a serious wtf?
Would you care to learn and respond to my other comment? And then see where it goes from there? If not, I'm simply going to assume you know I'm right.
Okay, so I think I worked out a better way to explain the argument: I still maintain Blockchain currencies aren't based on petro$. That's a stretch. I maintain that there is somewhat of a reliance on petro based on PoW in places like the USA, where there are still BTC mining rigs running. PoS is different in that all it requires is electricity to run. You don't need petro to be stable and prevalent in order for these things to flow, however. You can use "green energy" (yes, I understand you still need to create the equipment in the first place) to power PoW systems (see Venezuela) or to provide the energy needed to power the network components of PoS systems. You can also use something like Starlink to acquire the needed internet access to make use of parallel infrastructure to Blockchain systems.
The issue I have is that Blockchain currencies aren't "based on petro". That's a dishonest argument. Blockchain currencies derive their value from mathematics computations. They're no more reliant on petro than Gold or Silver. Yes, Gold and Silver require power to use mining equipment, but saying they're only valuable because a facet of their being acquired needs to exist is a bit of a stretch. My issue is the way you're framing it. In fact, I did indeed relent that you're right about generating equipment or maintaining power. I think you're extrapolating too much in order to get to your point about petro being needed. I think it's about as fair as saying crabs are fish because they swim in the ocean, but, in reality, that's an inherent aspect of their nature and calling a crab a fish takes way too many steps to illustrate how it's tangentially correct.
I'll admit I got too annoyed with you without adequately explaining myself. Like I said, you don't seem to be one of the annoying normalfags that just shits things up. I think you made this connection (which, again, truly isn't inaccurate, but only for reasons I'll reluctantly agree to) based on someone who you admire issuing these talking points and you understand, astutely, that the system cannot maintain itself for a litany of reasons we don't need to get in to, therefore you call in to question the authenticity of the asset class. I think this is an unfair summation and that you agreeing to these talking points will inhibit your ability to take the ticket to the upward mobility trend that will soon free many people like you or I if it hasn't already.
I think, in reality, we have a lot more in common than I anticipated. While I'm usually right, I do have faults and sometimes make quick judgements, which, again, usually end up being accurate. I think Blockchain conversations aren't something I usually have a lot of patience for, however, because, for the most part, I only really interact with people discussing the topic when people are smarter than me and I'm not used to someone who doesn't have a genuine grasp of Blockchain but can also demonstrate a similar line of thinking to my own about other topics.
Be that as it may, Morbo's rampage shouldn't be invested in to. I think what really upsets him so much is I've spoken about Q before here and, shill or no shill, the guy feels obligated to protect people from thinking much more about it, prompting him to unload this barrage against me, which, as you may be aware, tends to happen with alarming frequency when you display a considerable level of knowledge about the subject in public places like this, outside of a few walled off zones which, conveniently, are out of reach of the public eye for the most part.
Either way, I don't see a good reason for us to be at odds. Keep in mind I don't normally do this, but I do feel some glimmer of hope for this website still, even though it's clear to see it's loaded with gatekeepers doing damage control and frequently derailing discussion.
(post is archived)