Bitcoin consumes 4,000,000,000 W of power to process four transactions per second. A single Raspberry Pi with a database can do an order of magnitude more on 5W. Think about that next time you wonder if it's a good design.
-
Show this thread
-
And to all the inevitable "but decentralized but instant but global but whatever" repliers: if you think any of those require and are worth a NINE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE overhead, please never be an engineer.
14 replies 82 retweets 399 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @marcan42
but how else would you do it? proof of work is definitely wasteful when there are enough members competing, but how would YOU created a peer to peer payment system with no central authority and no double-spending?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Andrew___Morris
For starters, without a ~4 transaction per second, hardcoded, design limit. That particular design "feature" is the biggest problem with Bitcoin right now. Yes, Bitcoin pioneered a lot of interesting concepts. It also has some glaring, ridiculous design flaws.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @Andrew___Morris
Bitcoin is an experiment run amok. It should've never been used in production. Then again, this is how we got IPv4 too. Humans will never learn.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @marcan42
I don’t understand. What is “production”? Are you saying you think everyone adopting Bitcoin is wrong, and you are right, because of the low transaction speed? Or because of the energy consumption? Both?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Andrew___Morris
"Production" is the real world, at scale. Nobody is adopting Bitcoin for what is literally the first sentence of the abstract of the paper that introduced it, today. Its design was never capable of achieving what it set out to achieve, at scale.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @marcan42 @Andrew___Morris
If the authors of Bitcoin didn't know this would happen, they were idiots. More likely, they did know, but never expected it to actually become as big as it has, today - it was probably intended to be a prototype for something better.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
It is impossible to use the Bitcoin design as a functional version of electronic cash that works beyond a small-scale experiment. Thus we are forced to conclude that it was never intended to be more than an experiment. Or the original authors were idiots.pic.twitter.com/SpHfVJ5tlO
-
-
Replying to @marcan42 @Andrew___Morris
What would you say to the people who are heavily into BTC and aren't treating it as a functional version of electronic cash but rather electronic gold, based on supply scarcity and the absurd energy cost required to generate the coins?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.