GoSeigen wrote:Quite right, gold has been superseded by other more useful stuff in all but a few niche areas, but the point about extraction is not the one being debated. I could live with a high cost of extraction for bitcoin, the higher the better. It is the fact that the cost is tied to transactions that is the problem; it's a problem that does NOT occur with gold or other common currencies and assets; the physics of blockchain is messed up.
GS
I do think that some, possibly including yourself, were claiming that the energy costs were morally wrong where bitcoin was considered. As for transactions, I think that you will find that everyone's favourite, Visa, does charge per transaction.
However totally setting aside if I have remembered your arguments wrongly, and if I have I apologise. You are CERTAINLY wrong to say that the "physics of blockchain is messed up". Though it is entirely possible that you meant something else other than what you wrote.
The blockchain is simply a method of recording transactions. Bitcoin mining uses "proof of work" to pay people to keep a record and process the blockchain transactions. In and of itself that has nothing to do with the blockchain concept. Indeed many are looking towards using the blockchain while abandoning proof of work or indeed abandoning the idea of using it to record cryptocurrency transactions.
ie, this blog at gov.uk
https://hmlandregistry.blog.gov.uk/2019 ... ty-market/
The UK government might use it for land registry!
Moving back to currency transactions here is a link that you might like to check.
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/how-vis ... 2020-12-07
"2015 has turned blockchain into something the industry has to live with. It is no longer a choice anymore. Recent news speculating about the identity of its creator and the formalization of virtual money as a commodity, just makes it more real than ever before" ~ Visa
The article is about how Visa is using blockchain technology itself to transfer "real" money.