pull down to refresh
201 sats \ 4 replies \ @MaaliMKen 15 Oct 2023 \ parent \ on: Intercontinental energy grids. 🌎←♻️→🌍 bitcoin
Now about fiat being connected to fossil fuels via the petrodollar, this is a non sequitur if one concludes that 'therefore if we do away with fossil fuels, we shall have done away with fiat'. fiat corrupts fossil fuels, not the other way around. And they do not corrupt the world together.
Fossil fuels are only a big problem as far as only one metric is concerned - they pollute the air. Otherwise, they are the densest, cheapest, most useful energy source that propelled the USA into global dominance (because most thankfully to their lucky stars who watch over ya'll, when Americans first discovered oil they could trade it as they see fit. They literally showered in it and at one point, owners of oil wells thought oil was some useless nuisance making their farmlands dirty. Not like every other part of the world now where oil trade is a secret dealing between top brass in the government and foreign contractors).
Because of fossil fuels, in fact, we can support 8 billion humans on this planet with the best modern life has to offer. And China can manufacture tons of solar panels faster than a kid sucks breastmilk from its mother's tits.
Bitcoiners will therefore go where energy is the cheapest and if Texas has state subsidies making solar the cheapest, then by all means, be my guest. But don't go badmouthing people in Africa say running Bitcoin nodes with cow dung biogas, tree wood, diesel, or plastics. Because this ain't Texas.
Not sure it was a non-sequitur, because the conclusion to be drawn isn't that taking away the petrodollar causes a cessation of fiat to exist. This wasn't the case before the petrodollar existed. My argument is that there's a connection, one that's built the American security order, and provided demand. Because oil was the fastest expanding type of energy once upon a time, and companies like Ford, Chevy, Exxon, Chevron, etc, were the largest companies in the world by market cap (internet didn't exist yet), any expansion of energy was necessarily an expansion of the USD. All oil profits found their way into the US stock market and in US bonds. It was so effective that for 52 years we saw few to no negative effects for monetary expansion of the USD. It was far better than the quasi gold standard that was dumped in its favor. As the petrodollar fades, demand becomes more of an issue. This is partly a bullish feeling I have about bitcoin. Green energy is the fastest expanding type of energy now, and per KwH is the cheapest. Bitcoin uses electricity.
Fossil fuels are cheap and dense, the wind, sun and earth's core are also energy dense. Fossil fuels have done quite a bit for humanity's flourishing, but that's simply a historical observation.
Bitcoin miners will go where the energy is cheapest agreed. My point was the ERCOT grid miners haven't faced competition from energy storage or HVDC yet. Both occupy the same unique space as miners do. They'll lobby against it as it threatens to change their energy contract favorabillity, instead of changing their business models. Mining will get distributed globally, and hashpower will grow enough to where there's nothing about that grid that's advantageous beyond its independence from federal oversight. So nothing there changes, which means nothing about the companies change. None are profitable, none are good stewards of debt, none have grown their treasuries, none of them have shown in any way that they will without more fiat debt. Thusly, I view an investment there as a waste.
reply
The mind of the brainwashed fiat cuck is fascinating.
Tell me, what percent of total electricity production do you anticipate will go toward mining in 50-100 years?
reply
50 years? With a bitcoin standard and photonic silicon? Probably one order of magnitude more than what we use today as a percentage of global electricity. If bitcoin doesn't have a quote price and no other money or fiat exists, then everyone is using it: every government, business, and person. 51% attacks are a sillier proposition than they are today for reasons beyond energy. There's a trailing mass of mining hardware getting built as we go into the future too, but free/cheap sources of renewable energy theoretically mean all that old stuff is profitable, or that it at least has a much longer life. That's just another reason I'm no bull when it comes to industrial mining companies with no vision of the future other than doing the same things over and over again expecting different results (i.e. unprofitability). Hate to say it, but bitcoin L1 won't be particularly friendly to any business directionally trying to extract money from its coinbase or tx fees. That's why people should be suspicious of these public mining grifters and CEXs. You know how gun manufacturers are lobbying for laws to stop decentralized production (3d printing) of ghost guns and lower receivers because they're cutting into their profits? Same shit will come of miners. Espousing bullshit forks (drivechain etc), trading subsidies for OFAC compliance, accepting fossil fuel hush monies to keep convincing users of what political side to take, debt games with Wall Street bankers, APs for ETFs, all while getting Pied Piped by their pool master Foundry et al. Fuck these fiat companies dressed in orange. L2 is where the innovation and applications get built. Not a particularly great layer for miners or CEXs, especially with where it's trending—more self custody, more fully validating wallets.
Nodes is where it's at. Bring back the full-clients lol.
100 years? Who knows. If the security assumptions of quantum communication hold then it could be a lot of energy or close to none. Nodes will still matter tho. More independently powerful than ever.
reply
Ok, nice, so something you're not retarded about. I thought you might say something absurd like 30-70%
reply