Does BTC makes sense if there would be no transactions?
If transactions are critical for everyone, wouldn't that mean that keeping bitcoin mining alive is a fundamental part of transactions?
We could argue that fiat keeps databases running (if we ignore physical money) and bitcoin is keeping blocks mining active.
I don't think it is wrong to say megatwatts per transactions. We could ignore this completly and say 'the baseload of just keeping btc running is x megawatts per hour' and that would just ring the same bells.
I'm pondering if we could also say something like "btc itself as a cryptosystem motivates actors to consume megawatts per hour due to the interest in btc and the current fiat<>btc exchange value"?
From a default btc perspective, we are very aware of how many transactions are there.
Non of my ways of buying/using bitcoins is doing it indirectly.
And i do have to assume that this is nothing you can't estimate. After all either those systems are known and used, than you should be able to verify that this is a potential lightning transaction block which contains more or so.
I just don't know how it works in detail on the bacnking side as i havenot worked with it.
My thought was that a crypto based system could replace perhaps a sea of different approaches and alignment efforts across banking systems and if a central bank/banks are just need to approve a block, instead of mining it, the basic idea of a transparent cryptosigned blockchain might be useful.
But yes i don't think they need something like this as the current system seems to be very trustworthy. I have never heard of a bank creating money out of thin air.
Technology can be revolutionising without investing in a very specific cryptocurrency like bitcoin.
I'm betting my ass of that cryptocurrency in a different way might be the future of fiat BUT from the countries themselfs.
I'm not sure why anyone in the long run would trust a system which is controlled by some totally unknown and new individuals who invested in some cryptocurrencies.
There is no need at all to assume that the crypto technology is limited to btc and other current cryptocurrencies.
I always have put my phone in air plane mode when i was in a train due to the modem consuming a lot more energy.
I always assumed and still doe its due switching towers and less connecitivy which means using more power.
Whenever people argue that public transport doesn't need wifi i would argue against it due to power usage and also for more accessablity of the internet in general.
If transactions are critical for everyone, wouldn't that mean that keeping bitcoin mining alive is a fundamental part of transactions?
We could argue that fiat keeps databases running (if we ignore physical money) and bitcoin is keeping blocks mining active.
I don't think it is wrong to say megatwatts per transactions. We could ignore this completly and say 'the baseload of just keeping btc running is x megawatts per hour' and that would just ring the same bells.
I'm pondering if we could also say something like "btc itself as a cryptosystem motivates actors to consume megawatts per hour due to the interest in btc and the current fiat<>btc exchange value"?