The breakdown in cost pr. Transaction really drives home what a ludicrous system it is. Bitcoin is a fantastic example of a great invention put to horrible use.
The lightning network can handle transactions sure. Because it is not a distributed POW system. You can also just sell some BTC, transact via VISA or paypal etc., and buy BTC when you are done. Im not saying you can’t use BTC as a store of value. Just that transaction costs are way to high to use for payments/transactions i.e. as a currency.
Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies don't have a value assigned like normal currency. That means you almost never pay in bitcoin but in the bitcoin trading value of some currency. Instead of $5 you pay the current trading value of $5 in bitcoin. That is why it doesn't work as a currency and people are complaining about how they struggle with crypto volatility. No one really thinks about how many bitcoins they have just how much that is worth in "real" money.
At least gold is a physical good that has some use. I don't like gold speculations but bitcoins are literally just bits in a distributed database. But that is not even the problem. Most money is digital. The problem is the acceptance. It's primary use seems to be just trading it back and forth without trading it for goods.
They are bits that are cryptographically true and unique. It may not be tangible but now we are getting into philosophy of mathematics and whether math is real or not?
I believe in math therefore I believe in cryptography.
They are unique but they will cease to exist if everyone stops mining and doesn't keep a backup. They are just charges on a storage medium. You cannot use them for anything but to either keep in a wallet or move around. The transactions might be immutable but they are not persistent if not constantly tended to. Gold will stay gold for a long time without intervention.
Most normal currencies are the same as bitcoin/crypto in that they are mostly digital but at least they have some mostly agreed upon value within their system. They don't need to be converted to another currency to find out which goods I can exchange for them.
Im not a crypto person I own zero cryptocurrency - yes, it will only ever be worth what someone thinks its worth. If it all gets turned off it goes to zero, but if the network is up and someone is willing to act as an exchange, it will have value - even if it drops back to 10c. If it has some value, it can be used to move that value around. If it can be used to move that value around, then people will think it has value. Thus I dont think bitcoin is going away, though its value relative to USD could go anywhere
> Most normal currencies are the same as bitcoin/crypto in that they are mostly digital but at least they have some mostly agreed upon value within their system
The Dollar has an agreed-upon value of 1 Dollar per Dollar, the Euro of 1 Euro per Euro and the Bitcoin of 1 Bitcoin per Bitcoin. There are no agreed-upon values in any currency in free market. In socialism, they would dictate that a pound of butter had to cost 1unit of some currency. But in capitalist free markets, the value of a currency is always measured realtive to others things, being it goods (such as a standardized shopping baskets used for CPI) or other currencies or assets. For example, there is no way to determine if the dollar raised or fell - it always has a value of one dollar. But there is the DXY ("dixie") dollar index, where the value of the dollar is measured by its trading price with a basket of other currencies. Now if the DXY falls, you can say the dollar lost value. You could also say, the foreign currencies increased in value. It is always relative.
Plus, 100 dollars bought a whole lot of things 50 years ago, a lot less things 30 years ago, and today the same 100$ buy a lot less than that. There is no agreed upon value, it is supply and demand.
You left out paying ransom, buying illegal guns and drugs, evading taxes, evading sanctions, settling inter-cartel debts, and bribing certain important world leaders
Agreed apart from the fact that most currencies don't need to be converted to another currency first to determine which goods I can exchange for them. I agree that most currencies have no inherent value, only an agreed upon value.
That is a chicken and egg problem. Look at argentina pre Miley, when the dollar/peso exchange rate was fixed and you couldn't freely exchange. People would still prefer the dollar over the peso, even though you couldn't legally agree on dollar prices in contracts such as rentals. So people were using the dollar to save in, and exchange for peso when they needed to exchange goods.
My point being, you can have two competing currencies and exchange between them. In Argentinas case, the currency competition was healthy as politicians couldn't conceal their bad financial policies due to the hyper inflated exchange rate for pesos.
Bitcoin behaves exactly like a fiat currency would if driven completely by market forces. It's a good thought experiment in what the exchange rate would look like if the currency value is purely derived from demand and supply.
No, it behaves like a speculative asset. The price goes up as long as the number of people who believe it will go up increases, causing more people to buy it. Once the supply of greater fools is exhausted, there is no reason for anybody to hold it because it's price isn't going up, so they sell to find something else that goes up. This causes more people to sell so they don't lose more until the price falls to the non-speculative utility of the asset, which is 0.
The reason it doesn’t work as a currency is that the transaction costs are way way to high for that. A single transaction it is literally the price of 1-2 million visa transactions. This is by design, bitcoin will never be a competitive system for payment processing, without adding centralized “2nd layer” systems, and at that point why not just use a centralized system to begin with. It makes sense, a distributed system that does the same work millions of times cannot compete with a centralized system that does it once.
You use outdated information. Modern Lightning, a layer 2 solution based on Bitcoin, does Bitcoin transactions in less than a second for less than any Visa fee. More to it, you can send transfers of less than 10satoshis (less than a cent) for fees in the millisatoshi range on an economical scale. Visa/Mastercard won't ever offer transfer fees of less than fixed 10cent per transaction, making micropayments impossible, and 1$ payments super expensive (more like 20cent fees on the dollar). That is one of the reasons why W3C web payments API was cancelled.
As i understand it, all the lightning transactions happen off chain and the results are then published afterwards. So you are back to trusting a payment processor to avoid double spend. And, if you can do that, you don’t need BTC to begin with. Its just integrating bitcoin with another system that is actually able to do transactions. BTC alone remains horrible at that.
No, your understanding is incorrect - please do your homework and learn about lightning - you will be amazed. Lightning is zero-trust just as bitcoin is, there is no central instance. There is no "publishing" either. You can chose to not run your own lightning node (custodial vs. self-custodial wallets), then this becomes true. But that is the same as not running your own bitcoin wallet but using Exchanges, Banks etc. to hold your Bitcoin for you.
Lightning uses so called hashed time locked contract (HTLC) between nodes backed by bitcoin 2-of-2 wallets, with punishment options baked into the transaction script if people try to unilateraly reallocate funds from the channel. The channels between nodes form a payment network, where each node forwards funds (in return for a small fee).
To use a metaphor: bitcoin is the gold, lightning are green dollar notes with a guarantee to exchange those notes for gold anytime - just as our monetary system was before 1971 when Nixon broke that promise. Lightning is built in a way that it is decentralized and that promise can never be broken. And you can send those notes via the internet in sub-seconds.
Thanks, I accept that it requires less trust than using a central ledger, still it cannot provide the level of trustlessness bitcon can, if it could why use btc? I totally agree with your analogy, but in my view that just underlines that BTC is not useable as a currency, just as gold is not.
You obviously haven't looked into the tranasaction economics of the Lightning Network. And things will only be mentally priced in USD until we switch to something else - quite possibly Bitcoin.
I have, and as I have said to others the lightning network is not some magic that makes distributed PoW efficient, it just lets you conduct a bunch if transactions off chain and then record the end result. You could do that with fiat currency as well. BTC does one thing: lets users transact without possibility of double spending, without trusting any other users. Lightning network removes that last part, so you are just back to VISA/PayPal/Banks etc etc.
> If you don’t want people to rewrite history, you have to be wasting tons and tons of resources 24/7, 365. And that’s why Bitcoin burns as much power as a significant country.
No, Bitcoin burns that much power because it has become the top speculative asset.
But it only became that after maybe 8 years. Before that it actually functioned more like a currency (amongst other things, for buying illicit goods online).
And what makes Bitcoin ideal for speculation is its capped emission where every 4 years the amount emitted is halved, encouraging FOMO.
I agree most cryptocurrency should die in a fire, including all the ones made to enrich their creators, which is the vast majority of them.
The few that do not allow their creators any financial gain, and those that strongly discourage speculation by having the same amount emitted every year, do not need to die.
I live in Kurdistan (Iran) because of sanctions if it was not for crypto buying something online would have been one of the most difficult things i could do. i should have used middleman that give no guarantee to their services and suck. so I'm glad for crypto that i can receive my revenue and buy things. and instantly send money.
note: i read the comments and all of them argue against it because of its energy consumption. I don't find any of them convincing crypto has been good to me and i want it to be good for others too. The only thing that i care about are pedos and drug dealers which makes very upset because it's very true, they use it and i wish there was a way to track them.
Funny how you believe that your illegal usage is good, but drug dealing usage is bad.
If we were to believe the government, you should not be able to avoid sanctions. So, maybe you should not blindly trust government when it says Bitcoin is ah so bad because it it used by darknet markets.
Note that most of the 'Bitcoin anti-sustainability FUD' comes from a 2019 study published by cambridge university. The studies very heavily critisized, and in 2025 cambridge themselves revised their own models and admitted overestimation and model correction. The article is from 2022 and probably not up to date.
I would also highlight that most knowledge and mental models around Bitcoin and the ecosystem seem to be stuck in 2021 - but after the AI hype took over, there have been slow improvements and developments that go mostly unnoticed, also here on HN. I.e. the lightning network is evolving too, making anonyous (to a certain extend), sub-second, off-chain transactions possible at way better efficiency regarding energy. With other developments like Bitcoin Taproot (Schnorr signatures), async and trampoline payments on the horizon fir lightning, we can expect even better anonymity and ease of use for lightning network within the next 1-2 years.
Most comments, reasoning, papers etc. older than 3-4 years should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is a rapidly evolving and changing field. Probably the same applies to AI progress (especially the debatable energy consumption around AI).
(1) can you point to some large important positive uses of Bitcoin at present, or are you just saying that at some point in the future we will see them?
(2) are you saying all the bad things like Ponzi scams, hacking, drug money monitoring, buying csam and ransomware, have stopped, or that at some point in the future they will?
> (1) can you point to some large important positive uses of Bitcoin at present
No, not at present - but there will be in the future. Bitcoin is faily new, hard to understand for laymen, and government regulation and the existing financial industry is actively fighting it (with some extend changing in the US right now). The properties bitcoin has allow for lots of benefits and use cases that are superior to our existing financial systems, but they depent on adoption. I am bullish on the bitcoin, the same way I was bullish on the internet in 1994. The internet is great, but not so great if only a couple of thousand people in the world use it. That is the same adoption problem, not an issue with the underlying technology.
> (2) are you saying all the bad things
All the bad things existed before bitcoin, and will exist for eternity. The internet in the early 90s and 00s was also a place full of scams, ponzi scheme emails, phishing, fraud etc. Most crime money today is fiat cash. Some people (especially in the EU) claim a total surveillance state and the removal of cash paired with total money control is needed for a safe and secure society. I am in team liberal democracy, where the freedom of cash and lack of government total control is a benefit to society, ensures perpetual democracy and freedom to the individual. The fact that bitcoin and crypto is used by criminals just as cash is, shouldn't be a reason to not have it. Just as removing cash to prevent illegal activity should not be goal in a free society.
I like to point people to this page: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
The breakdown in cost pr. Transaction really drives home what a ludicrous system it is. Bitcoin is a fantastic example of a great invention put to horrible use.
Does that include transactions over the Lightning Network? If it doesn't then it's entirely meaningless.
The lightning network can handle transactions sure. Because it is not a distributed POW system. You can also just sell some BTC, transact via VISA or paypal etc., and buy BTC when you are done. Im not saying you can’t use BTC as a store of value. Just that transaction costs are way to high to use for payments/transactions i.e. as a currency.
Crypto should have stayed a silly tech demo that nerds used to trade with eachother for pizza.
The how would Epstein-esque pedo's and bad state actors transact?
Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies don't have a value assigned like normal currency. That means you almost never pay in bitcoin but in the bitcoin trading value of some currency. Instead of $5 you pay the current trading value of $5 in bitcoin. That is why it doesn't work as a currency and people are complaining about how they struggle with crypto volatility. No one really thinks about how many bitcoins they have just how much that is worth in "real" money.
You can say the same thing about gold.
At least gold is a physical good that has some use. I don't like gold speculations but bitcoins are literally just bits in a distributed database. But that is not even the problem. Most money is digital. The problem is the acceptance. It's primary use seems to be just trading it back and forth without trading it for goods.
They are bits that are cryptographically true and unique. It may not be tangible but now we are getting into philosophy of mathematics and whether math is real or not? I believe in math therefore I believe in cryptography.
They are unique but they will cease to exist if everyone stops mining and doesn't keep a backup. They are just charges on a storage medium. You cannot use them for anything but to either keep in a wallet or move around. The transactions might be immutable but they are not persistent if not constantly tended to. Gold will stay gold for a long time without intervention.
Most normal currencies are the same as bitcoin/crypto in that they are mostly digital but at least they have some mostly agreed upon value within their system. They don't need to be converted to another currency to find out which goods I can exchange for them.
Im not a crypto person I own zero cryptocurrency - yes, it will only ever be worth what someone thinks its worth. If it all gets turned off it goes to zero, but if the network is up and someone is willing to act as an exchange, it will have value - even if it drops back to 10c. If it has some value, it can be used to move that value around. If it can be used to move that value around, then people will think it has value. Thus I dont think bitcoin is going away, though its value relative to USD could go anywhere
> Most normal currencies are the same as bitcoin/crypto in that they are mostly digital but at least they have some mostly agreed upon value within their system
The Dollar has an agreed-upon value of 1 Dollar per Dollar, the Euro of 1 Euro per Euro and the Bitcoin of 1 Bitcoin per Bitcoin. There are no agreed-upon values in any currency in free market. In socialism, they would dictate that a pound of butter had to cost 1unit of some currency. But in capitalist free markets, the value of a currency is always measured realtive to others things, being it goods (such as a standardized shopping baskets used for CPI) or other currencies or assets. For example, there is no way to determine if the dollar raised or fell - it always has a value of one dollar. But there is the DXY ("dixie") dollar index, where the value of the dollar is measured by its trading price with a basket of other currencies. Now if the DXY falls, you can say the dollar lost value. You could also say, the foreign currencies increased in value. It is always relative.
Plus, 100 dollars bought a whole lot of things 50 years ago, a lot less things 30 years ago, and today the same 100$ buy a lot less than that. There is no agreed upon value, it is supply and demand.
You left out paying ransom, buying illegal guns and drugs, evading taxes, evading sanctions, settling inter-cartel debts, and bribing certain important world leaders
The USD still rules (by several magnitudes) for the use cases you mention.
I dislike crypto as much as the next guy but, the normal currencies are not very different.
Agreed apart from the fact that most currencies don't need to be converted to another currency first to determine which goods I can exchange for them. I agree that most currencies have no inherent value, only an agreed upon value.
That is a chicken and egg problem. Look at argentina pre Miley, when the dollar/peso exchange rate was fixed and you couldn't freely exchange. People would still prefer the dollar over the peso, even though you couldn't legally agree on dollar prices in contracts such as rentals. So people were using the dollar to save in, and exchange for peso when they needed to exchange goods.
My point being, you can have two competing currencies and exchange between them. In Argentinas case, the currency competition was healthy as politicians couldn't conceal their bad financial policies due to the hyper inflated exchange rate for pesos.
Bitcoin behaves exactly like a fiat currency would if driven completely by market forces. It's a good thought experiment in what the exchange rate would look like if the currency value is purely derived from demand and supply.
I've never understood why you'd need a currency specifically for Italian cars.
Two actually! Fiat vs Ferrari. https://ferrari-imports.enigmatechnologies.dev/
No, it behaves like a speculative asset. The price goes up as long as the number of people who believe it will go up increases, causing more people to buy it. Once the supply of greater fools is exhausted, there is no reason for anybody to hold it because it's price isn't going up, so they sell to find something else that goes up. This causes more people to sell so they don't lose more until the price falls to the non-speculative utility of the asset, which is 0.
The reason it doesn’t work as a currency is that the transaction costs are way way to high for that. A single transaction it is literally the price of 1-2 million visa transactions. This is by design, bitcoin will never be a competitive system for payment processing, without adding centralized “2nd layer” systems, and at that point why not just use a centralized system to begin with. It makes sense, a distributed system that does the same work millions of times cannot compete with a centralized system that does it once.
You use outdated information. Modern Lightning, a layer 2 solution based on Bitcoin, does Bitcoin transactions in less than a second for less than any Visa fee. More to it, you can send transfers of less than 10satoshis (less than a cent) for fees in the millisatoshi range on an economical scale. Visa/Mastercard won't ever offer transfer fees of less than fixed 10cent per transaction, making micropayments impossible, and 1$ payments super expensive (more like 20cent fees on the dollar). That is one of the reasons why W3C web payments API was cancelled.
As i understand it, all the lightning transactions happen off chain and the results are then published afterwards. So you are back to trusting a payment processor to avoid double spend. And, if you can do that, you don’t need BTC to begin with. Its just integrating bitcoin with another system that is actually able to do transactions. BTC alone remains horrible at that.
No, your understanding is incorrect - please do your homework and learn about lightning - you will be amazed. Lightning is zero-trust just as bitcoin is, there is no central instance. There is no "publishing" either. You can chose to not run your own lightning node (custodial vs. self-custodial wallets), then this becomes true. But that is the same as not running your own bitcoin wallet but using Exchanges, Banks etc. to hold your Bitcoin for you.
Lightning uses so called hashed time locked contract (HTLC) between nodes backed by bitcoin 2-of-2 wallets, with punishment options baked into the transaction script if people try to unilateraly reallocate funds from the channel. The channels between nodes form a payment network, where each node forwards funds (in return for a small fee).
To use a metaphor: bitcoin is the gold, lightning are green dollar notes with a guarantee to exchange those notes for gold anytime - just as our monetary system was before 1971 when Nixon broke that promise. Lightning is built in a way that it is decentralized and that promise can never be broken. And you can send those notes via the internet in sub-seconds.
Thanks, I accept that it requires less trust than using a central ledger, still it cannot provide the level of trustlessness bitcon can, if it could why use btc? I totally agree with your analogy, but in my view that just underlines that BTC is not useable as a currency, just as gold is not.
You obviously haven't looked into the tranasaction economics of the Lightning Network. And things will only be mentally priced in USD until we switch to something else - quite possibly Bitcoin.
I have, and as I have said to others the lightning network is not some magic that makes distributed PoW efficient, it just lets you conduct a bunch if transactions off chain and then record the end result. You could do that with fiat currency as well. BTC does one thing: lets users transact without possibility of double spending, without trusting any other users. Lightning network removes that last part, so you are just back to VISA/PayPal/Banks etc etc.
(2022)
Also from 2022, Jorge Stolfi:
https://english.elpais.com/science-tech/2022-07-07/jorge-sto...
> If you don’t want people to rewrite history, you have to be wasting tons and tons of resources 24/7, 365. And that’s why Bitcoin burns as much power as a significant country.
No, Bitcoin burns that much power because it has become the top speculative asset.
But it only became that after maybe 8 years. Before that it actually functioned more like a currency (amongst other things, for buying illicit goods online).
And what makes Bitcoin ideal for speculation is its capped emission where every 4 years the amount emitted is halved, encouraging FOMO.
I agree most cryptocurrency should die in a fire, including all the ones made to enrich their creators, which is the vast majority of them.
The few that do not allow their creators any financial gain, and those that strongly discourage speculation by having the same amount emitted every year, do not need to die.
I live in Kurdistan (Iran) because of sanctions if it was not for crypto buying something online would have been one of the most difficult things i could do. i should have used middleman that give no guarantee to their services and suck. so I'm glad for crypto that i can receive my revenue and buy things. and instantly send money.
note: i read the comments and all of them argue against it because of its energy consumption. I don't find any of them convincing crypto has been good to me and i want it to be good for others too. The only thing that i care about are pedos and drug dealers which makes very upset because it's very true, they use it and i wish there was a way to track them.
Funny how you believe that your illegal usage is good, but drug dealing usage is bad.
If we were to believe the government, you should not be able to avoid sanctions. So, maybe you should not blindly trust government when it says Bitcoin is ah so bad because it it used by darknet markets.
So does this mean that AI will absorb all the cryptocurrency compute when "we" collectively realize that crypto was so much rectal sunshine?
Note that most of the 'Bitcoin anti-sustainability FUD' comes from a 2019 study published by cambridge university. The studies very heavily critisized, and in 2025 cambridge themselves revised their own models and admitted overestimation and model correction. The article is from 2022 and probably not up to date.
I would also highlight that most knowledge and mental models around Bitcoin and the ecosystem seem to be stuck in 2021 - but after the AI hype took over, there have been slow improvements and developments that go mostly unnoticed, also here on HN. I.e. the lightning network is evolving too, making anonyous (to a certain extend), sub-second, off-chain transactions possible at way better efficiency regarding energy. With other developments like Bitcoin Taproot (Schnorr signatures), async and trampoline payments on the horizon fir lightning, we can expect even better anonymity and ease of use for lightning network within the next 1-2 years.
Most comments, reasoning, papers etc. older than 3-4 years should be taken with a grain of salt, as it is a rapidly evolving and changing field. Probably the same applies to AI progress (especially the debatable energy consumption around AI).
A couple of questions.
(1) can you point to some large important positive uses of Bitcoin at present, or are you just saying that at some point in the future we will see them?
(2) are you saying all the bad things like Ponzi scams, hacking, drug money monitoring, buying csam and ransomware, have stopped, or that at some point in the future they will?
> (1) can you point to some large important positive uses of Bitcoin at present
No, not at present - but there will be in the future. Bitcoin is faily new, hard to understand for laymen, and government regulation and the existing financial industry is actively fighting it (with some extend changing in the US right now). The properties bitcoin has allow for lots of benefits and use cases that are superior to our existing financial systems, but they depent on adoption. I am bullish on the bitcoin, the same way I was bullish on the internet in 1994. The internet is great, but not so great if only a couple of thousand people in the world use it. That is the same adoption problem, not an issue with the underlying technology.
> (2) are you saying all the bad things
All the bad things existed before bitcoin, and will exist for eternity. The internet in the early 90s and 00s was also a place full of scams, ponzi scheme emails, phishing, fraud etc. Most crime money today is fiat cash. Some people (especially in the EU) claim a total surveillance state and the removal of cash paired with total money control is needed for a safe and secure society. I am in team liberal democracy, where the freedom of cash and lack of government total control is a benefit to society, ensures perpetual democracy and freedom to the individual. The fact that bitcoin and crypto is used by criminals just as cash is, shouldn't be a reason to not have it. Just as removing cash to prevent illegal activity should not be goal in a free society.
… they’re not wrong
[dead]
[dead]
It will.
Oh it will.