Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using Bitcoin(twitter.com)
twitter.com
Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using Bitcoin
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392602041025843203
376 comments
the biggest notable difference between then and now is then bitcoin seemed to be going only up. Now it seems to be going down
Thats not a notable difference - it goes up and down all the time. Its renowned for its volatility. You can hardly say 'bitcoin seemed to be going only up' with a straight face - its been a rollercoaster since day 1.
Thats not a notable difference - it goes up and down all the time. Its renowned for its volatility. You can hardly say 'bitcoin seemed to be going only up' with a straight face - its been a rollercoaster since day 1.
Since Day 1 - Bitcoin was worth 1000+ Bitcoins to 1 USD. Yesterday it took $59,000 USD to buy 1 Bitcoin.
It's had a few sharp downs. It's had a few long plateaus of a year or so.
But - from the perspective of yesterday going back a few months - it certainly seemed to only go up.
If the S&P was up over 59,000,000x in 12 years, people would say the S&P only goes up... I mean, they already say "stonks only go up".
It's had a few sharp downs. It's had a few long plateaus of a year or so.
But - from the perspective of yesterday going back a few months - it certainly seemed to only go up.
If the S&P was up over 59,000,000x in 12 years, people would say the S&P only goes up... I mean, they already say "stonks only go up".
Yes it's being going up overall (a lot), but even if you just look at a chart of the last 12 months, it hasn't dipped more now than it did a few times last year - I can see why some people think it's going to keep going up for a long time, and others the opposite, but I can't see why anyone would think "great it's always going up" until now and be scared by a relatively minor dip down here.
My point exactly
"past performance... future returns"
The S&P keeps going up because if it went down the fed would lower interest rates until it started going up again.
The S&P keeps going up because if it went down the fed would lower interest rates until it started going up again.
> since day 1.
I seem to remember that back then it was more "When you're down so low, the only way is up".
I should have grabbed a few score of those BTC for pocket change, but did not bother. Yeah, I know.
I seem to remember that back then it was more "When you're down so low, the only way is up".
I should have grabbed a few score of those BTC for pocket change, but did not bother. Yeah, I know.
Someday, in the future:
Child: Parent, parent, where does our generational wealth come from?
Parent: Well you see my child, back in 2012, I didn't buy a pizza...
Child: Parent, parent, where does our generational wealth come from?
Parent: Well you see my child, back in 2012, I didn't buy a pizza...
Yea, my hind-sight portfolio is really kicking ass.
The advice I remember was: “If it’s low, buy. If it’s high, buy.”
For that very reason, most businesses who accept bitcoin and other crypto (including Tesla, probably) don't actually keep the crypto, they immediately convert to traditional currency.
On the other hand, Tesla is unique in that it literally went out and bought bitcoin to just sit on it, which is incredibly dumb.
On the other hand, Tesla is unique in that it literally went out and bought bitcoin to just sit on it, which is incredibly dumb.
There is nothing dumb about what Musk and Tesla did, in fact it was for self gain.
Look at the price when Tesla announced they bought bitcoin worth about a billion dollars. Even after the current fall, the price now is way higher than back then.
Just the way Musk has been able to manipulate the whole market after investing his? and Tesla's money is just extraordinary.
It was a strategic investment which has reaped money like anything in such a short span and they even used part of it to generate a positive component to their balance sheet in last quarter.
Look at the price when Tesla announced they bought bitcoin worth about a billion dollars. Even after the current fall, the price now is way higher than back then.
Just the way Musk has been able to manipulate the whole market after investing his? and Tesla's money is just extraordinary.
It was a strategic investment which has reaped money like anything in such a short span and they even used part of it to generate a positive component to their balance sheet in last quarter.
Honestly, when is the guy going to get charged by the SEC for market manipulation? It is fairly obvious he knows what he is doing with the crypto market and making a good chunk of change on it through his social media influence. But he also does it with Tesla (I know he got charged that one time but he's been a repeat offender).
Bitcoin is not a security nor a protected commodity market, so does the SEC even have jurisdiction?
McAfee was arrested for pumping crypto, but he was lying about his ownership and gave pretty specific forward looking claims. I don't believe he's been convicted yet.
McAfee was arrested for pumping crypto, but he was lying about his ownership and gave pretty specific forward looking claims. I don't believe he's been convicted yet.
Bitcoin is regulated in the US under both the Commodities Futures Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission. These tend to be fairly narrow rules about contracts for arbitrage, know your customer rules, etc. I have no idea if they have authority over pump-and-dumps
It's not illegal to buy a stock and tell people you bought it. There are entire businesses whose model is "make an investment, and then tell other people why you made it hoping they will make the same one". This isn't criminal, it's good business practice.
The thing he got in trouble for with Tesla was for lying about about a takeover offer, which is criminal, basically because it's a type of fraud. This isn't that.
Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.
The thing he got in trouble for with Tesla was for lying about about a takeover offer, which is criminal, basically because it's a type of fraud. This isn't that.
Not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc.
It sure is illegal to say "the stock of the company that I'm the CEO of is too high."
I fear the US government might allow Elon Musk get away with anything, as long as he keeps launching satellites for the military.
[deleted]
BTC is not under SEC ( or even any) regulation for pump and dump schemes.
[deleted]
And now that its down, they're probably buying more.
They can get 5-10B in it, then Elon can pump it up more.
They can get 5-10B in it, then Elon can pump it up more.
They made more money doing that than selling cars.
Tesla publicly stated when they started accepting bitcoin that they would hold onto it as cryptocurrency, not sell it.
It's not dumb, all mayor central banks of the planet have printed 50% of GDP on their currencies including the dollar to deal with the pandemic. That means that you risk losing 50% of the value of your cash, so you invest it and you diversify to protect yourself, but because everybody with money is doing exactly that, you have massive asset bubbles that also risk your money, so its hard to find something to invest in.
Elon took a relative small bet by been the first mayor company to buy massive amounts of crypto and so far he has made bank. Only the future will tell if it was a good move in the long run.
Elon took a relative small bet by been the first mayor company to buy massive amounts of crypto and so far he has made bank. Only the future will tell if it was a good move in the long run.
Elon didn’t take a bet.
Bitcoin and crypto is basically a gamble. But what Musk and Tesla did wasn’t a gamble.
What they did was to effectively monetize Musk’s cult like following and his well earned reputation. They knew with the greatest certainty that the news of Tesla/Musk supporting crypto would lift crypto, so they managed to make money off it.
Bitcoin and crypto is basically a gamble. But what Musk and Tesla did wasn’t a gamble.
What they did was to effectively monetize Musk’s cult like following and his well earned reputation. They knew with the greatest certainty that the news of Tesla/Musk supporting crypto would lift crypto, so they managed to make money off it.
Those units don't even make sense.
New money as a percentage of GDP?
New money as a percentage of GDP?
What percent of Tesla customers are buying their cars with bitcoins? I doubt it’s more than 1 out of 100, I think it was just a publicity stunt both times, media talked about Tesla when they started accepting them and will talk about them again when they decided to stop it.
It was a classic pump-and-dump if you ask me.
Step 1: purchase $1.5Bn in Bitcoin
Step 2: make an announcement that will likely result in a rising valuation (it briefly went up by ~20% just because Musk added #bitcoin to his bio on Twitter...)
Step 3: sell 10% of your bitcoin at a profit of >$272M in Q1
Step 4: wait for the market to go up again, then proceed with Step 3
It's less risky to invest in a highly volatile, unregulated market if you have the means to somewhat steer the market just by making an announcement or have your company's figurehead add a hashtag on Twitter...
Step 1: purchase $1.5Bn in Bitcoin
Step 2: make an announcement that will likely result in a rising valuation (it briefly went up by ~20% just because Musk added #bitcoin to his bio on Twitter...)
Step 3: sell 10% of your bitcoin at a profit of >$272M in Q1
Step 4: wait for the market to go up again, then proceed with Step 3
It's less risky to invest in a highly volatile, unregulated market if you have the means to somewhat steer the market just by making an announcement or have your company's figurehead add a hashtag on Twitter...
If the market going up again (Step 4) is a sure thing, then Step 3 is obviously sub-optimal. If that is not a sure thing, then they've still got a potential ~$1B net loss.
I am not asserting that Elan's and Tesla's motives were pure. Nor that they complied with all applicable laws, regulations, etc. But "classic pump-and-dump" is a poor and very misleading description of the events to date.
I am not asserting that Elan's and Tesla's motives were pure. Nor that they complied with all applicable laws, regulations, etc. But "classic pump-and-dump" is a poor and very misleading description of the events to date.
Like him or hate him, I don't think you can tar him with the "figurehead" brush.
It's a figure of speech and meant to be completely neutral and independent of the actual person. Just like "the face of the company", e.g. Pat Gelsinger in the case of Intel or Tim Cook for Apple.
"Face of the company" and "figurehead" have different meanings. The latter is pejorative. From the dictionary: "a person who is head of a group, company, etc., in title but actually has no real authority or responsibility".
"figurehead" is a word with a meaning. "Head" and "face" have different meanings.
This is probably knowable. Aren't transactions public?
I think you are quite obviously correct. But this is Hacker News. Not (hypothetical handwave) Marketer News. On that (\1) site, your comment would be brutally downvoted for obviousness. ;)
This has changed:
“Private-equity firm revives zombie fossil-fuel power plant to mine bitcoin”
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-f...
“Private-equity firm revives zombie fossil-fuel power plant to mine bitcoin”
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/05/private-equity-f...
That plant was restarted in 2017 and has had a mining data center at least since early 2020.
Scale and expansion plans only became available on recent S4 filing. That’s new info. Tesla probably doesn’t want to contribute to the trend and hence the change of heart.
A relatively small SPAC caused them to realize the obvious?
If that is the case, what was going on before?
If that is the case, what was going on before?
I think it's probably indicative of a trend that Tesla doesn't want to incentivize any further. Tesla's mission is all about moving away from fossil fuels.
Prior, lean was towards renewable sources like hydro because of lower cost of surplus energy.
Prior, lean was towards renewable sources like hydro because of lower cost of surplus energy.
I am pro Tesla as a company and own a model Y, but this news was upsetting and frustrating to me. Exactly what changed from a few months ago when they announced their Bitcoin position and that they would accept payment? They knew damn well about mining in China being almost exclusively coal and that mining is extremely bad for the environment.
On another note, I don't think anybody was able to buy a Tesla with Bitcoin. This was a false claim that never came to fruition. Some serious market manipulation here by Tesla and Elon.
On another note, I don't think anybody was able to buy a Tesla with Bitcoin. This was a false claim that never came to fruition. Some serious market manipulation here by Tesla and Elon.
The most reasonable explanation is that Tesla/Elon don't actually care about the environment and if it's going to suffer in their pursuit of whatever financial scheming and/or vanity, so be it.
Or he thinks that the best thing to do for the environment is to pump up Tesla by any means necessary.
I have really lost a ton of respect for Elon in the past few week.
If we were talking penny stocks, this is classic pump and dump behavior that should result in jail time.
I mean how much attention does one person need.
If we were talking penny stocks, this is classic pump and dump behavior that should result in jail time.
I mean how much attention does one person need.
> Musk smartly decided he did not want to risk his half a trillion dollar company on random bitcoin fluctuations.
It's not going to matter. If Bitcoin is going down persistently it means we're on the back side of this global asset mania (which the commodity bubble may be signaling, that we're in or close to the 9th inning), and Tesla's stock is going with it under all scenarios. $900 to $589 is already telling an obvious story.
Granted it's not just Tesla's bubble that is well over, the cloud bubble has ended as well (just wait until you see how low eg Snowflake goes, top to bottom).
Amusingly, Bitcoin is likely to hold its value better than Tesla, in the case of the asset bubbles giving out. The market will look to value Tesla a bit closer to fundamentals (already happening), which is another 70-90% down for Tesla. At some point Tesla will be valued based on cashflow, profit production, and they'll never be able to support a $500b valuation; whereas Bitcoin can support something like a trillion dollar valuation globally (even if it takes more time to hold that ground persistently).
I can't wait to go value hunting in the cloud again, as in March of 2020. Tesla won't be on that shopping list.
It's not going to matter. If Bitcoin is going down persistently it means we're on the back side of this global asset mania (which the commodity bubble may be signaling, that we're in or close to the 9th inning), and Tesla's stock is going with it under all scenarios. $900 to $589 is already telling an obvious story.
Granted it's not just Tesla's bubble that is well over, the cloud bubble has ended as well (just wait until you see how low eg Snowflake goes, top to bottom).
Amusingly, Bitcoin is likely to hold its value better than Tesla, in the case of the asset bubbles giving out. The market will look to value Tesla a bit closer to fundamentals (already happening), which is another 70-90% down for Tesla. At some point Tesla will be valued based on cashflow, profit production, and they'll never be able to support a $500b valuation; whereas Bitcoin can support something like a trillion dollar valuation globally (even if it takes more time to hold that ground persistently).
I can't wait to go value hunting in the cloud again, as in March of 2020. Tesla won't be on that shopping list.
Why is the commodity market signaling we're close to the 9th inning?
What is on your list? NET? DDOG? CRWD?
Or, did someone higher up leak information to Musk on upcoming regulation?
I guess we might know if Musk sells his coins.
(And no--I have no evidence. I just know wealthy boys get information. Even the people who didn't like Musk did 180's after his ingratiating performance Saturday Night Live. For the record, I have always liked Musk.)
I guess we might know if Musk sells his coins.
(And no--I have no evidence. I just know wealthy boys get information. Even the people who didn't like Musk did 180's after his ingratiating performance Saturday Night Live. For the record, I have always liked Musk.)
That doesn't make sense, they are still holding a very large amount of it, why would they put this out and decrease the value of their own holdings?
Isn't it possible they're dumping the rest of their holdings?
That or they are certain they will get burned sooner or later, and therefore even if they tank the value of their holdings it's at a time of their choosing and with an amount that's predictable.
Contrast with the scenario where they keep doing it, steadily increasing their bitcoin holdings and even seeing the proportion of sales using bitcoin increase… and THEN hit a wall, not of their own choosing, and see the value collapse.
Even if they are not dumping their holdings at all, there's still a case to be made for pulling a plug at a time they control, over an amount they control. If it collapses, they can put a hard limit on how much they lose: that being, the previous value of their entire bitcoin holdings.
Contrast with the scenario where they keep doing it, steadily increasing their bitcoin holdings and even seeing the proportion of sales using bitcoin increase… and THEN hit a wall, not of their own choosing, and see the value collapse.
Even if they are not dumping their holdings at all, there's still a case to be made for pulling a plug at a time they control, over an amount they control. If it collapses, they can put a hard limit on how much they lose: that being, the previous value of their entire bitcoin holdings.
The statement in the tweet said that they won't sell.
That is as amendable as the policy of accepting payment in bitcoin was - and right now, with Tesla having a nontrivial position in bitcoin and with Musk being an influencer of bitcoin price, it is in the company's interest for him to say that it is not going to sell, even if it reverses that policy tomorrow.
[deleted]
To buy more at a lower price?
Could Tesla not have just decided that any new purchases would be converted to the dollar immediately? Accepting Bitcoin doesn’t necessarily mean holding Bitcoin and holding is where valuation matters. If I’m right about that it sounds like this could have a somewhat environmentally conscious motive.
Volatility was well known and they could just convert to cash on receipt if that was the problem. More likely he was pressured to stop accepting it for payment. But by who?
Who cares if it goes up and down if you are convinced that BTC will be the currency of the future?
From a BTC perspective USD is very volatile!
From a BTC perspective USD is very volatile!
One cannot eat delusion.
Should I tell that to a colleague who retired with millions in fiat made from the last BTC run?
Why did he/she retire with millions in fiat if BTC is the future?
Because we're not in the future yet.
This makes no sense, his tweet alone has helped drive BTC down 10%.
The amount of BTC Tesla could take in was likely only to be a small fraction of the amount they already hold. The terms were terrible for buyers, since TSLA forced them to take the downside risk on BTC movements.
The amount of BTC Tesla could take in was likely only to be a small fraction of the amount they already hold. The terms were terrible for buyers, since TSLA forced them to take the downside risk on BTC movements.
Well, the other thing that changed is that the woke mob was throwing a lot of flack at Elon and TSLA about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. As an EV company, they likely want consumer sentiment to view them as having a positive environmental impact.
Pump and dump
It says right there that they are holding onto their bitcoin assets. Assuming that's true, there's no way this is a pump and dump, because there was no dump.
[deleted]
You can borrow against it, and that wouldn't be a taxable event. Not sure what % of your portfolio lenders allow though.
It's not really about taxable events so much as possessing a financial interest. Using it as collateral doesn't get it off your balance sheet, nor does it negate the influence of any price swings. If anything, it intensifies them, since a downward swing (say, in response to a tweet saying you're no longer three rocket emoji Bitcoin, only two rocket emoji Bitcoin) might trigger a margin call.
Okay well then maybe not. I don’t imagine Elon would hurt TSLA to get a discount on BTC
I disagree...
Pretty sure he saw this now deleted thread on Reddit /r/dogecoin
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/nb1rki/cryptocurr...
From ElegantPoop:
> Well, it would appear by this image we have ourselves a sub 1% of bitcoin per transaction. Winning.
Pretty sure he saw this now deleted thread on Reddit /r/dogecoin
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/nb1rki/cryptocurr...
From ElegantPoop:
> Well, it would appear by this image we have ourselves a sub 1% of bitcoin per transaction. Winning.
I mean, if there's one thing we can all definitely agree on it's that dogecoin has no where to go but up at this point.
Winning indeed.
"Hey, poppa, why is our currency named doge coin?"
'Well son, a long time ago there was this really cute shiba inu that became a bit of a meme and then the internet happened.'
Winning indeed.
"Hey, poppa, why is our currency named doge coin?"
'Well son, a long time ago there was this really cute shiba inu that became a bit of a meme and then the internet happened.'
Dogecoin is neither deflationary, nor does it have a fixed supply. It's not going to be a thing beyond a lot of poor fools getting rekt when their techno king abandons it for his next meme fetish.
[deleted]
> So what changed? Well I think the biggest notable difference between then and now is then bitcoin seemed to be going only up. Now it seems to be going down.
TSLA appears to follow the same curve as BTC ... but either way it doesn't make sense, because if you accept BTC payments, you can instantly transfer them to cash if you don't trust BTC.
TSLA appears to follow the same curve as BTC ... but either way it doesn't make sense, because if you accept BTC payments, you can instantly transfer them to cash if you don't trust BTC.
Well, guarantee after today, pretty much whoever held both bitcoin (and/or possibly other crypto) and Tesla stock, will be selling all of the Tesla stock, at minimum. He made a bunch of enemies today, intentional or not.
This seems so petty, he caused bitcoin and other crypto to go 5x. Maybe some very recent buyers are affected but the vast majority made out like bandits, and can lock in their profits by selling btc off now.
Bitcoin didn't go 5x just because of him. It was already on an upward trajectory, breaking new all-time-highs, and around 30k, if I remember correctly, when he made the announcement that Tesla bought bitcoin and is accepting it.
It did jump up 6% the day he announced Tesla was accepting bitcoin, but he effectively undid all of that (and more, it went down around 12%) yesterday, as well as add more seeming legitimacy to the 'bitcoin is bad for the environment' line that the media has been pushing hard since it started shooting up again (they didn't give a shit when its price was low, even though not much has changed for energy use between then and now).
Some people aren't just looking to make a quick buck, they want to see crypto become a more stable asset class, not just another pump and dump scheme (plenty of shitty alt-coins for pump and dump schemes). This one tweet put a lot more uncertainty into that (it shouldn't have, but it did), especially if it triggers a wave of 'well bitcoin is bad for the environment, so we better get out' from other entities.
Also how would he not know bitcoin's energy usage before the first announcement? If he had done any due diligence at all he would have known this, so either they didn't do any research or it's a bullshit scapegoat to cover up the real reason they're backing out.
In the long run I think Bitcoin will survive this, but in the short term it could prematurely kill (or at least significantly stunt) this current bull run and we could already be back on track for the next multi-year bear market, which I've been through twice now with bitcoin, and it sucks (good for accumulating bitcoin on the cheap though).
It did jump up 6% the day he announced Tesla was accepting bitcoin, but he effectively undid all of that (and more, it went down around 12%) yesterday, as well as add more seeming legitimacy to the 'bitcoin is bad for the environment' line that the media has been pushing hard since it started shooting up again (they didn't give a shit when its price was low, even though not much has changed for energy use between then and now).
Some people aren't just looking to make a quick buck, they want to see crypto become a more stable asset class, not just another pump and dump scheme (plenty of shitty alt-coins for pump and dump schemes). This one tweet put a lot more uncertainty into that (it shouldn't have, but it did), especially if it triggers a wave of 'well bitcoin is bad for the environment, so we better get out' from other entities.
Also how would he not know bitcoin's energy usage before the first announcement? If he had done any due diligence at all he would have known this, so either they didn't do any research or it's a bullshit scapegoat to cover up the real reason they're backing out.
In the long run I think Bitcoin will survive this, but in the short term it could prematurely kill (or at least significantly stunt) this current bull run and we could already be back on track for the next multi-year bear market, which I've been through twice now with bitcoin, and it sucks (good for accumulating bitcoin on the cheap though).
I've sold my TSLA weeks ago but I am keeping my crypto ;)
I never had TSLA because it never made sense to me why it was so high, but if I did I would definitely have sold it today. Was actually somewhat considering the new Model 3 for my next car, but now I'll look into other EVs instead. Still buying crypto.
Bitcoin fluctuations didn't become a problem when Musk purchased bitcoin, they have always been commonplace.
Can't he short some Bitcoin futures when they make a sale, to eliminate volatility as a concern?
this.
All it means is that they're effectively "holding bitcoin," or otherwise exposed to its fluctuations. They're doing that anyway. It's not really different from holding forex, stocks or any other risky asset.
Nothing changed. As the men himself said, it's a hustle.
The company probably made a lot of money with this maneuver.
The company probably made a lot of money with this maneuver.
> Now it seems to be going down.
You mean just over the last month?
You mean just over the last month?
It’s still up 5x yoy
Decision to go into bitcoin was smart and also decision to back off was smart. Musk is the only person who can do or say two contradictory things and both are smart. He really is a genius
You're giving him a bit too much credit. He should have never made Tesla invest money in BTC, that's just a bad PR move. Now they have to do damage control.
I think they’re being sarcastic.
this should be easy to hedge though
Now it seems to be going down. When bitcoin continues to steadily go down, it is a significant concern because Tesla will have to take losses on the cars it sells and will have reduced gross margins, which will result in their stock price tanking.
They can always price cars based on BTC's price and liquidate it to fiat or cryptocurrency of their choice.
If Euro/USD goes down by few basis points would one stop selling cars priced in euro?
Btc swings can be +/-20% a day, so not exactly a great comparison.
Also currency hedging is a thing that many companies employ to normalize profits. I’m sure there’s a BTC equivalent for this but the volatility would make it unreliable most likely
Btc swings can be +/-20% a day, so not exactly a great comparison.
Also currency hedging is a thing that many companies employ to normalize profits. I’m sure there’s a BTC equivalent for this but the volatility would make it unreliable most likely
Stable currencies may move a few basis points from day to day. BTC can move hundreds or thousands of basis points.
What I'm saying is that they can sell cars in BTC without any volatility exposure. The price going down is not the reason for them deciding against selling cars in BTC but the energy subsidies.
Which currency lost 4/5th of it's value ( 20 k to 4,5 k) till covid started over a couple of years?
That's not "a few basis points"
That's not "a few basis points"
An absolute massive amount? Just checking my local currency (SEK) against the USD that was in 2014.
Also losing 15% against the DKK which regular people use to shop just a 25 min ride from here.
Currency fluctuations are not uncommon and can be very significant.
Also losing 15% against the DKK which regular people use to shop just a 25 min ride from here.
Currency fluctuations are not uncommon and can be very significant.
You're talking about a span of over multiple years. I just checked BTC and it even dropped 11,51% in 24h.
Except they also had 2? Billion in Bitcoin holdings. So the float up and down had an impact?
They didn't sell their $1.5B BTC.
> Musk smartly decided he did not want to risk his half a trillion dollar company on random bitcoin fluctuations.
so musk realized finally that bitcoin is volatile. he's an idiot. his stupid appearance on snl confirms this perspective for me. why are so many people listening to this dimwit. he has nothing of value to offer or say. he should keep his stupid mouth shut. he's worse than trump in that regard.
so musk realized finally that bitcoin is volatile. he's an idiot. his stupid appearance on snl confirms this perspective for me. why are so many people listening to this dimwit. he has nothing of value to offer or say. he should keep his stupid mouth shut. he's worse than trump in that regard.
> Musk smartly decided he did not want to risk his half a trillion dollar company on random bitcoin fluctuations.
Except that's actually what he did, so if it was smart, then he didn't believe he was risking his business on it. Many, many retailers already stopped accepting bitcoin for this exact reason, so either he's not smart, according to your logic, or he had ulterior motives, which must somehow be smarter than the surface appearance of it. It can't be both.
Here's what changed: Your perception of him.
You think he has anyone's interest at stake but his own. He does not. He will throw anyone under the bus for his whims, even the entire planet. He disparages and slanders people rescuing kids from a cave.
> covered up with false reasoning
Um, do you mean a lie? This is all so juvenile. Are you afraid he's going to say, "What are you calling me a liar?"
Yes. You're calling him a liar. He's a liar. That's what he is.
What else is he lying about? He has proven, unequivocally, that he is willing to ruin people for profit.
He's not doing well for human beings and he is actively betraying people who want to help humanity. When the truth can no longer be denied, all of those Tesla buyers are going to have some real egg on their faces. When Tesla goes under and they all stop working. It's just a matter of time.
The amount of catastrophe that has already been created by this man is, as of yet, unimaginable. It is indefensible.
> he should have never reached this stage
We agree on that.
Except that's actually what he did, so if it was smart, then he didn't believe he was risking his business on it. Many, many retailers already stopped accepting bitcoin for this exact reason, so either he's not smart, according to your logic, or he had ulterior motives, which must somehow be smarter than the surface appearance of it. It can't be both.
Here's what changed: Your perception of him.
You think he has anyone's interest at stake but his own. He does not. He will throw anyone under the bus for his whims, even the entire planet. He disparages and slanders people rescuing kids from a cave.
> covered up with false reasoning
Um, do you mean a lie? This is all so juvenile. Are you afraid he's going to say, "What are you calling me a liar?"
Yes. You're calling him a liar. He's a liar. That's what he is.
What else is he lying about? He has proven, unequivocally, that he is willing to ruin people for profit.
He's not doing well for human beings and he is actively betraying people who want to help humanity. When the truth can no longer be denied, all of those Tesla buyers are going to have some real egg on their faces. When Tesla goes under and they all stop working. It's just a matter of time.
The amount of catastrophe that has already been created by this man is, as of yet, unimaginable. It is indefensible.
> he should have never reached this stage
We agree on that.
If TSLA has already dumped their Bitcoin, Elon just pulled off a highly lucrative pump and dump scheme.
1. Buy $1.5 billion in BTC
2. Announce TSLA will accept BTC, with the knowledge that very few people will actually do that, and public support from a major company will drive up the price of BTC.
3. Sell off your BTC at the higher price. A portion was sold in Q1 for a hefty profit already.
4. Rinse and repeat with DOGE?
The environmental impact was well known before they bought it, so it's a little odd that they'd reverse course because of that.
1. Buy $1.5 billion in BTC
2. Announce TSLA will accept BTC, with the knowledge that very few people will actually do that, and public support from a major company will drive up the price of BTC.
3. Sell off your BTC at the higher price. A portion was sold in Q1 for a hefty profit already.
4. Rinse and repeat with DOGE?
The environmental impact was well known before they bought it, so it's a little odd that they'd reverse course because of that.
> The environmental impact was well known before they bought it, so it's a little odd that they'd reverse course because of that.
I wonder if the original decision to accept bitcoin was a quick decision by the CEO, but now the rest of the company and the shareholders have persuaded them it isn't a public relations risk they should be taking. Imagine the headline - "Every Tesla EV bought with bitcoin gives off more CO2 than a gas car!"
I wonder if the original decision to accept bitcoin was a quick decision by the CEO, but now the rest of the company and the shareholders have persuaded them it isn't a public relations risk they should be taking. Imagine the headline - "Every Tesla EV bought with bitcoin gives off more CO2 than a gas car!"
Or - and this might sound a little tin foil-hat - this was a strategic move to send the price of Bitcoin down, so they can buy the 10% they sold in Q1 back at lower price.
Crypto is an unregulated market with ridiculously high volatility and announcements or big buy-ins are a relatively safe method of controlling the price (to a degree).
It's a win-win in the eyes of the management - great PR ("see - they DO care") and dropping crypto prices...
Crypto is an unregulated market with ridiculously high volatility and announcements or big buy-ins are a relatively safe method of controlling the price (to a degree).
It's a win-win in the eyes of the management - great PR ("see - they DO care") and dropping crypto prices...
While a popular opinion, that does sound more tin foil hat to me than the alternative that he updated his knowledge in the last few months and/or had his opinion on Bitcoin changed by communication from others in the organisation.
Tesla is a 568 billion market cap company. The profit it made on Bitcoin doesn't move the needle enough to justify some elaborate scheme to pump and dump. Musk is no stranger to whimsical decisions that, while involving a large amount of money in absolute terms, are not material in the context of the much larger value of his shares in Tesla.
Tesla is a 568 billion market cap company. The profit it made on Bitcoin doesn't move the needle enough to justify some elaborate scheme to pump and dump. Musk is no stranger to whimsical decisions that, while involving a large amount of money in absolute terms, are not material in the context of the much larger value of his shares in Tesla.
> [...] he updated his knowledge in the last few months and/or had his opinion on Bitcoin changed by communication from others in the organisation.
The former idea is ridiculous - so the "Techno King of Tesla" (his choice of title, not mine) took months to learn that proof-of-work crypto produces a lot of CO²? Please...
As for the latter, I doubt that to be the case with a person who allegedly acts like this: "If you said something wrong or made one mistake or rubbed him the wrong way, he would decide you’re an idiot and there was nothing that could change his mind." [0]
> Tesla is a 568 billion market cap company. The profit it made on Bitcoin doesn't move the needle enough to justify some elaborate scheme to pump and dump.
Excuse me? Tesla's Q1 net income was $438M, $101M of which the company attributed to selling crypto [1], that's a whopping 23% of their net profits. I'd say that's "moving the needle" quite a bit indeed.
YMMV of course, but I'd like to think that close to a quarter of net income is quite substantial.
[0] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7977370/elon-musk-fired-hundre...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/tesla-tsla-earnings-q1-2021-...
The former idea is ridiculous - so the "Techno King of Tesla" (his choice of title, not mine) took months to learn that proof-of-work crypto produces a lot of CO²? Please...
As for the latter, I doubt that to be the case with a person who allegedly acts like this: "If you said something wrong or made one mistake or rubbed him the wrong way, he would decide you’re an idiot and there was nothing that could change his mind." [0]
> Tesla is a 568 billion market cap company. The profit it made on Bitcoin doesn't move the needle enough to justify some elaborate scheme to pump and dump.
Excuse me? Tesla's Q1 net income was $438M, $101M of which the company attributed to selling crypto [1], that's a whopping 23% of their net profits. I'd say that's "moving the needle" quite a bit indeed.
YMMV of course, but I'd like to think that close to a quarter of net income is quite substantial.
[0] https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7977370/elon-musk-fired-hundre...
[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/26/tesla-tsla-earnings-q1-2021-...
And the rest of the profit was from selling carbon credits. And now they are losing a big part of one large buyer.
https://fortune.com/2021/05/05/tesla-selling-co2-credits-ste...
>>'took him months to learn'
You say that like he didn't have two giant companies to run.
He wasn't studying bitcoin all this time.
>>Q1 profits
Company valuation depends on decades of earnings. Current earnings matter little to the valuation of high growth companies.
>>excuse me
You're excused. It's clear that assessing public company valuations is not your area.
You say that like he didn't have two giant companies to run.
He wasn't studying bitcoin all this time.
>>Q1 profits
Company valuation depends on decades of earnings. Current earnings matter little to the valuation of high growth companies.
>>excuse me
You're excused. It's clear that assessing public company valuations is not your area.
> You're excused. It's clear that assessing public company valuations is not your area.
Basic business economics doesn't seem to be your area.
Here's a basic example of how you can shoot the "public valuation" of a company into Low Earth Orbit without actually earning a single penny for your operations:
Issue 100 million shares at 0.01 cents per share and go public. That's now a $10k dollar public company. Next, you do an increase in capital stock by selling 1 million additional shares at 0.5 dollars per share to gullible investors.
In order to achieve that, you hire a bunch of credible consultants who support your fundraiser by lending your company their good reputation and who advertise your business. You can pay them from the $500k you got from selling the new 1M shares and you can now call yourself a multi-millionaire, because the initial 100 million shares are now worth $50M on paper, because that's the latest share price.
See how that works and why public valuation based on share value isn't always the most useful tool in assessing a company's finances?
> Current earnings matter little to the valuation of high growth companies.
See above for how a company can still be cash-starved from cost of operations and investments despite being worth billions on paper.
Current earnings do matter, because the current share price doesn't pay wages or keeps the lights on in your Gigafactories.
edit: I also find it quite amusing that you think the self-proclaimed "King of Doge" and co-founder of PayPal(!) doesn't know how crypto works, oh please.
Basic business economics doesn't seem to be your area.
Here's a basic example of how you can shoot the "public valuation" of a company into Low Earth Orbit without actually earning a single penny for your operations:
Issue 100 million shares at 0.01 cents per share and go public. That's now a $10k dollar public company. Next, you do an increase in capital stock by selling 1 million additional shares at 0.5 dollars per share to gullible investors.
In order to achieve that, you hire a bunch of credible consultants who support your fundraiser by lending your company their good reputation and who advertise your business. You can pay them from the $500k you got from selling the new 1M shares and you can now call yourself a multi-millionaire, because the initial 100 million shares are now worth $50M on paper, because that's the latest share price.
See how that works and why public valuation based on share value isn't always the most useful tool in assessing a company's finances?
> Current earnings matter little to the valuation of high growth companies.
See above for how a company can still be cash-starved from cost of operations and investments despite being worth billions on paper.
Current earnings do matter, because the current share price doesn't pay wages or keeps the lights on in your Gigafactories.
edit: I also find it quite amusing that you think the self-proclaimed "King of Doge" and co-founder of PayPal(!) doesn't know how crypto works, oh please.
This is getting to be a mindless discussion so this'll be my last response on it
>> Issue 100 million shares at 0.01 cents per share and go public. That's now a $10k dollar public company. Next, you do an increase in capital stock by selling 1 million additional shares at 0.5 dollars per share to gullible investors. See how that works and why public valuation based on share value isn't always the most useful tool in assessing a company's finances
Tesla's free float is worth over $453 billion and over $20 billion worth of stock trades each day. This isn't a penny stock whose illiquid float can be pushed around like that.
Regarding company finances, after its capital raise last year TSLA has a large cash balance. $17.4 billion at the most recent quarter end. A few hundred million from the bitcoin sale doesn't move the needle.
What matters when you're considering whether Musk would do this or not is whether it would be material to him. It wouldn't because most of his wealth is tied to the value of his stock, which in turn is tied to the market value of the company. The bitcoin profits made an impact of maybe a tiny fraction of a percent of the value of the company and his wealth. Not worth 5 minutes of his time over 3 months.
He updated his view to the correct one. Do you really want to be part of a lynch mob that makes it harder for public company CEOs to update their view to the correct one by coming out with tinfoil conspiracies to explain actions that were probably just the result of lack of attention?
>> Issue 100 million shares at 0.01 cents per share and go public. That's now a $10k dollar public company. Next, you do an increase in capital stock by selling 1 million additional shares at 0.5 dollars per share to gullible investors. See how that works and why public valuation based on share value isn't always the most useful tool in assessing a company's finances
Tesla's free float is worth over $453 billion and over $20 billion worth of stock trades each day. This isn't a penny stock whose illiquid float can be pushed around like that.
Regarding company finances, after its capital raise last year TSLA has a large cash balance. $17.4 billion at the most recent quarter end. A few hundred million from the bitcoin sale doesn't move the needle.
What matters when you're considering whether Musk would do this or not is whether it would be material to him. It wouldn't because most of his wealth is tied to the value of his stock, which in turn is tied to the market value of the company. The bitcoin profits made an impact of maybe a tiny fraction of a percent of the value of the company and his wealth. Not worth 5 minutes of his time over 3 months.
He updated his view to the correct one. Do you really want to be part of a lynch mob that makes it harder for public company CEOs to update their view to the correct one by coming out with tinfoil conspiracies to explain actions that were probably just the result of lack of attention?
From the linked statement: "Tesla will not be selling any Bitcoin"
Edit: Yes, technically it’s future tense, but I’d be surprised if there were going to declare this without also disclosing any material amount they’ve already disposed of. It would do wonders for any charge of pump and dump.
Edit: Yes, technically it’s future tense, but I’d be surprised if there were going to declare this without also disclosing any material amount they’ve already disposed of. It would do wonders for any charge of pump and dump.
What if he sold most of it already and simply won't sell anymore?
The statements is about their intentions for the future, it's not about what they did or did not.
The statements is about their intentions for the future, it's not about what they did or did not.
Are you suggesting Elon Musk isn't honest?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-sold-bitcoin-q1-proceed...
Future/past tense... that statement was future tense and simply be the rules of the english language excludes the sales you are referring to.
Remember when he tweeted that the TSLA price was too high just so he could buy back stock at a lower price? Then after getting fined a measly $20 million he said it was "worth it". And to be fair, at least he's honest and open about his market manipulation, unlike other players. Shows us that he's able to get away with it. If this doesn't wake people up about the blatant manipulation that goes on in financial markets, I don't know what will.
Maybe he did a wallet transfer, then sold personally. Transfer the balance back to company. Semantics.
As far as pump and dumps go, this would make a very tiny amount of money for a company of Tesla's market cap. In another post someone said they made $270MM from selling bitcoin in Q1. On a market cap of close to $590B. And they can only really do that trick a few times at most.
I have no idea what the true motivation for Tesla accepting bitcoin was. But I would be surprised if a publicly traded company took this much risk for such a relatively small amount
I have no idea what the true motivation for Tesla accepting bitcoin was. But I would be surprised if a publicly traded company took this much risk for such a relatively small amount
Tesla's Q1 operating profit of $594M was slightly less than the sum of their $101M Bitcoin profit and the $518M regulatory credits they received[1].
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n0jxyt/tes...
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/n0jxyt/tes...
$270MM was >60% all of Tesla's $480MM Q1 profit.
It's so unlikely that they can repeat this. Telsa is supposedly one of the most valuable companies in the world, as measured by market cap. There's no way they're depending on pump and dump schemes to sustain their profitability. If that were the case, they wouldn't have nearly as high of a valuation
> If that were the case, they wouldn't have nearly as high of a valuation
Market cap is just number of stock x unit price. Apart from giving a (very rough) idea of how much it would cost to buy the company, it doesn’t say anything by itself. You can choose to see it as how a company is valuable if you think the market is efficient for that. But that high number could also be an accident of a handful speculative traders, because a variation in price change the whole market cap. Like if I pre mine a 1B of a crypto token and sell someone 1 for 1$ my token will have a market cap of 1B$, but that money is nowhere. The stock market could be more efficient, but there is no guarantee it is at time t for every stock.
Market cap is just number of stock x unit price. Apart from giving a (very rough) idea of how much it would cost to buy the company, it doesn’t say anything by itself. You can choose to see it as how a company is valuable if you think the market is efficient for that. But that high number could also be an accident of a handful speculative traders, because a variation in price change the whole market cap. Like if I pre mine a 1B of a crypto token and sell someone 1 for 1$ my token will have a market cap of 1B$, but that money is nowhere. The stock market could be more efficient, but there is no guarantee it is at time t for every stock.
Comparing market cap and revenue (let alone profit or free cash flow) is an apples to... potato comparison. Especially for Tesla (at a ~600x P/E ratio)
Even Musk acknowledged that Tesla is overvalued.
Wasn't $270M Tesla's quarterly profit in January?
> market cap of close to $590B.
comparing the earnings to their market cap makes no real sense. Comparing to their existing earnings or profitability of their existing investments makes way more sense.
comparing the earnings to their market cap makes no real sense. Comparing to their existing earnings or profitability of their existing investments makes way more sense.
A large number of people were making comments about the environmental concerns of crypto the instant Tesla announced they were buying into Bitcoin. What changed?
It's really hard to argue Tesla's surprise here. (Elon Musk actually replied to Jack Dorsey saying "True" in response to his argument that Bitcoin is good for renewable energy: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1385107878055317509 )
It's really hard to argue Tesla's surprise here. (Elon Musk actually replied to Jack Dorsey saying "True" in response to his argument that Bitcoin is good for renewable energy: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1385107878055317509 )
Jack Dorsey saying that 'bitcoin incentivizes renewables' is the modern monetary theory of green energy. Gonna leave the fridge door open, the air conditioning on and drive my EV with the breaks engaged to accelerate the green revolution
Reminds me of Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg's speech in the fifth element.
>Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is [Pushes glass off table] destroyed… [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain…of life. [Desk prepares a glass of water and a bowl of fruit] You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers.
>Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Take this empty glass. Here it is, peaceful, serene and boring. But if it is [Pushes glass off table] destroyed… [robot cleaners move to clean broken glass] Look at all these little things. So busy now. Notice how each one is useful. What a lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people who'll be able to feed their children tonight so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny weeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain…of life. [Desk prepares a glass of water and a bowl of fruit] You see, Father, by creating a little destruction, I'm actually encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business. Cheers.
Ironically Zorg is an Industrialist and Weapons Dealer
Like burning down houses incentivizes building fire trucks.
That’s deeply unfair to MMT. Also didn’t musk reply to jack endorsing that opinion?
Why would Musk saying anything be a confirmation? He has a history of lying and misrepresenting.
https://www.elonmusk.today/
https://www.elonmusk.today/
[deleted]
Buying and breaking solar panels still produces a signal for manufacturers to make more solar panels. Buying and breaking the most performant solar panels will produce a signal and selective pressure to create more performant solar panels. It doesnt matter what the demand is for as long as it isnt going away and is selecting for a given outcome.
Bitcoin should still reduce energy consumption but in the short term it can still have a positive effect on renewable investment.
Bitcoin should still reduce energy consumption but in the short term it can still have a positive effect on renewable investment.
More like, it adds another use for solar energy surplus besides storing in a battery or selling back to the grid.
https://wintonark.medium.com/bitcoin-mining-impact-on-renewa...
https://github.com/ARKInvest/SolarBatteryBitcoin
https://wintonark.medium.com/bitcoin-mining-impact-on-renewa...
https://github.com/ARKInvest/SolarBatteryBitcoin
If the problem supposedly being addressed is surplus renewable supply, a far better and more broadly relevant use would be heating domestic hot water, which would simultaneously displace natural gas usage for that purpose.
About 15% of US household natural gas usage is for domestic hot water heating. That adds up to a lot of CO2.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37433
Edit: corrected percentage and added reference.
About 15% of US household natural gas usage is for domestic hot water heating. That adds up to a lot of CO2.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37433
Edit: corrected percentage and added reference.
I've always thought municipal hot water systems are a good idea. Maybe warming water in buffer tanks to supply to homes for hot water and heating writ large a few hours or days later is a feasible buffer?
Municipal hot water systems would suffer from significant heat losses in the piping between the heating plant and the houses, not to mention the huge infrastructure expense of running an extra set of hot water lines throughout a municipality.
What I was describing is more along the lines of dispatchable electric heat pump water heaters in houses. These type of water heaters are already available today, and we should be replacing every natural gas water heater with them.
What I was describing is more along the lines of dispatchable electric heat pump water heaters in houses. These type of water heaters are already available today, and we should be replacing every natural gas water heater with them.
I would totally be a huge infrastrucre cost. That said many water systems are due for overhauls in the coming years anyways.
However, heat loss is not a significant issue. These systems were installed in Scandinavian countries as well as in a lot of the Soviet Union, with heat losses of 9% and less achievable. This compares favorably with ~5% power losses in the grid. Water stores heat very very well.
The main advantage is that while yes it is a bit less efficient for waste electricity, it allows nuclear power plants, data centers, and other waste heat-producing industries to recuperate 80+% of heat losses, and crucially when heating is a big cost, thermal solar is about 3x more effective than photovoltaic.
This system would make it possible for 100% of heating carbon emissions to be eliminated, all the time, while at the same times allowing for buffer tanks to soak up excess electricity supply.
However, heat loss is not a significant issue. These systems were installed in Scandinavian countries as well as in a lot of the Soviet Union, with heat losses of 9% and less achievable. This compares favorably with ~5% power losses in the grid. Water stores heat very very well.
The main advantage is that while yes it is a bit less efficient for waste electricity, it allows nuclear power plants, data centers, and other waste heat-producing industries to recuperate 80+% of heat losses, and crucially when heating is a big cost, thermal solar is about 3x more effective than photovoltaic.
This system would make it possible for 100% of heating carbon emissions to be eliminated, all the time, while at the same times allowing for buffer tanks to soak up excess electricity supply.
That's a really large fraction of money going to the mining hardware, despite the model already using high electricity prices. That makes me worry the economics wouldn't be stable enough.
> A large number of people were making comments about the environmental concerns of crypto the instant Tesla announced they were buying into Bitcoin. What changed?
Elon Musk showed him self to be either ignorant or a liar about the Green nature of Bitcoin.
Here's a repudiation of the idea that Bitcoin is Green:
https://www.ft.com/content/0448b44d-1d78-48f8-8ca8-6edae7976...
Elon Musk showed him self to be either ignorant or a liar about the Green nature of Bitcoin.
Here's a repudiation of the idea that Bitcoin is Green:
https://www.ft.com/content/0448b44d-1d78-48f8-8ca8-6edae7976...
they bought in Q4, sold 1/4 of it in Q1, which allowed them to have a profit that quarter since they lose money on selling cars. Now china car sales are down this quarter and they realize they need to cash out completely.
"Tesla will not be selling any Bitcoin..." from the tweet.
They sold 10% of their holdings throughout Q1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-sold-bitcoin-q1-proceed...
"Will not be selling" is not "has not sold before the announcement"
See tweets about self-driving capabilities.
thats what he said before but magically sold some in q1. wonder how much he dumped before this statement.
Maybe Elon Musk dumped his coin, but Tesla is a public company. Tesla almost certainly didn't dump its coin without public notice.
Don't think they have to disclosing ANYTHING until next quarterly results.
Is there anything actually binding and backing this statement? I’d love to know if there’s anything at all in regards to how public companies have to treat crypto currency ownership.
It's the same as any asset or revenue stream. They have to report their overall GAAP bottom line only at the end of a quarter but even then don't need to legally report the specifics.
Usually it's reported for shareholder interest and to attract investors. They can also hide it among other business divisions if they want to, risking investor backlash. Like how Microsoft used to show Azure revenue.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/ballm...
Usually it's reported for shareholder interest and to attract investors. They can also hide it among other business divisions if they want to, risking investor backlash. Like how Microsoft used to show Azure revenue.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/12/ballm...
they dumped in q1 without disclosing until earnings.
A funny thing for Elon Musk to do would be:
Tesla Inc. buys some Bitcoin.
Tesla announces that Bitcoin is good now and that it bought some.
The price of Bitcoin goes up, because institutional adoption of Bitcoin is good for its price, but also because, by the Elon Markets Hypothesis, anything that Musk buys goes up.
Tesla sells some Bitcoin, making a profit.
Musk tweets that the price of Bitcoin is too high. Bitcoin prices go down due to the Elon Markets Hypothesis.
Go to Step 1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-22/electr...
Tesla Inc. buys some Bitcoin.
Tesla announces that Bitcoin is good now and that it bought some.
The price of Bitcoin goes up, because institutional adoption of Bitcoin is good for its price, but also because, by the Elon Markets Hypothesis, anything that Musk buys goes up.
Tesla sells some Bitcoin, making a profit.
Musk tweets that the price of Bitcoin is too high. Bitcoin prices go down due to the Elon Markets Hypothesis.
Go to Step 1.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-02-22/electr...
Would such a strategy be illegal?
Welcome to the wild west of Crypto. People have been doing this or similar schemes since 2010. But I don't think that was Elon's intention. He has pretty good point after all. Bitcoin just produced too much unnecessary CO2, so it's simply not gonna work as a money replacement. I think more people start to realize this, but are still a bit reluctant to sell their BTC.
It was absolutely his intention. Everyone who owns bitcoin wants it to go up. This is exactly a pump and dump strategy. He went on SNL to make a broader market aware of it, then in the interest it created, he offloads his shares?
Smartest guy on the planet, claiming to be saving it from climate change didn't know Bitcoin damages the environment?
If he didn't already know that, then can he be trusted? If he did know that, can he be trusted?
Smartest guy on the planet, claiming to be saving it from climate change didn't know Bitcoin damages the environment?
If he didn't already know that, then can he be trusted? If he did know that, can he be trusted?
Actually yeah who knows. It does make Tesla investment into Bitcoin look completely naive and shortsighted. They surely should have known a few month ago? Did they even start selling cars for coins?
Also probably a good idea to check the real CO2 numbers, they often get extrapolated I think.
Also probably a good idea to check the real CO2 numbers, they often get extrapolated I think.
Keep in mind that bitcoin is software. It can, and will be upgraded. If Ethereum ends up leading the way with proof of stake and it ends up being a success, then there is no reason to believe that bitcoin wouldn't follow in its footsteps. Crypto is a concept, as much as it is an individual coin game. Bitcoin may not end up being the leader, but your money will definitely change in the future, and it will absolutely be because of crypto currencies.
> Keep in mind that bitcoin is software
Sort of. The miner pools have a lot invested in special-purpose hardware. It's not clear what would happen if people tried to make a change miners weren't interested in. Yes, you can threaten a hard fork, but angry miners could freeze transactions, revealing how not-so-decentralized it really is, destroying confidence in it as a currency.
Sort of. The miner pools have a lot invested in special-purpose hardware. It's not clear what would happen if people tried to make a change miners weren't interested in. Yes, you can threaten a hard fork, but angry miners could freeze transactions, revealing how not-so-decentralized it really is, destroying confidence in it as a currency.
This same logic was paraded around in 2017 and it's gone mostly nowhere in the years since.
Primarily because the bitcoin codebase got taken over by some bad actors. However, if ETH takes over in market share, BTC can either improve or become irrelevant. The people controlling bitcoin may be dumb, but they aren't dumb enough to let something else take over without a fight.
Exactly. If other currencies prove a better way, and especially if they start taking significant market share, there's nothing stopping bitcoin from following in its footsteps. There's just no point making such a big change when there's plenty of other coins out there to experiment with first.
hasn't like 99% of it been mined already?
competition from miners to accept fees will still exist
Only if it is provable that the intent was to trick other people into buying Bitcoin so you can sell it (pump and dump). For something big like Bitcoin it would be hard to prove. For penny stocks it happens and does get prosecuted.
In most asset classes: yes.
In crypto: nope.
In crypto: nope.
Not really, if the buyer/seller is not actually lying.
There's also a few potential compounding layers in this.
- big corp buys btc, makes btc legit, raises confidence and price
- new cryptomillionaire find new friend in musk, and consider tesla the car brand of crypto, spend their money on tesla, including bitcoin, so tesla bitcoin wallet grows, while the company value grows while the asset grows..
it's all shower thought but I found it a fun business trick
- big corp buys btc, makes btc legit, raises confidence and price
- new cryptomillionaire find new friend in musk, and consider tesla the car brand of crypto, spend their money on tesla, including bitcoin, so tesla bitcoin wallet grows, while the company value grows while the asset grows..
it's all shower thought but I found it a fun business trick
I’d wager instead: the price of all crypto goes down.
Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.
Tesla buys into some unknown proof-of-stake coin.
> Tesla has suspended vehicle purchases using Bitcoin.
The real reason is likely to be that few, if any, cars were bought with bitcoin.
This has been a recurring theme throughout Bitcoin's history that's played out hundreds of times in more or less the same way. Merchants discover Bitcoin, and think it is a (VISA|PayPal|Checking|etc.) replacement. Then they try using it that way. They're shocked to find very low to non-existent transaction volume.
When Bitcoin does work, it's in situations in which those making the payment have few other options. They're blocked from taking credit card payments or interacting with the banking system. It's easy to dismiss those use cases, but they're real.
> ... we intend to use it when mining transitions to more sustainable energy.
Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.
The part about other cryptocurrencies using less energy is pie in the sky reference to proof-of-stake. Its security model has yet to be proven on any network worth discussing. Those claiming otherwise are selling snake oil.
All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.
The real reason is likely to be that few, if any, cars were bought with bitcoin.
This has been a recurring theme throughout Bitcoin's history that's played out hundreds of times in more or less the same way. Merchants discover Bitcoin, and think it is a (VISA|PayPal|Checking|etc.) replacement. Then they try using it that way. They're shocked to find very low to non-existent transaction volume.
When Bitcoin does work, it's in situations in which those making the payment have few other options. They're blocked from taking credit card payments or interacting with the banking system. It's easy to dismiss those use cases, but they're real.
> ... we intend to use it when mining transitions to more sustainable energy.
Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.
The part about other cryptocurrencies using less energy is pie in the sky reference to proof-of-stake. Its security model has yet to be proven on any network worth discussing. Those claiming otherwise are selling snake oil.
All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.
> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.
It's so easy to assert and so comforting to believe, but is it true?
Just in this thread alone there are two articles already, one from the Financial Times, one from ARS Technica, which say the opposite. And personally, it's hard for me to believe that people who are keen on maximizing profits in pretty much its purest form--cryptocurrencies are literally burning resources for money, directly--would not take the opportunity to take whatever energy source is available in order to convert the generated energy into money in their bank account or crypto wallet.
At astronomically low efficiency, too. Because in proof of work, all calculations per block are entirely wasted... until the very last one where you managed to hit the right hash.
It's so easy to assert and so comforting to believe, but is it true?
Just in this thread alone there are two articles already, one from the Financial Times, one from ARS Technica, which say the opposite. And personally, it's hard for me to believe that people who are keen on maximizing profits in pretty much its purest form--cryptocurrencies are literally burning resources for money, directly--would not take the opportunity to take whatever energy source is available in order to convert the generated energy into money in their bank account or crypto wallet.
At astronomically low efficiency, too. Because in proof of work, all calculations per block are entirely wasted... until the very last one where you managed to hit the right hash.
> Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are
Primarily based in a country which is also the world's largest consumer of coal
> Its security model has yet to be proven on any network worth discussing. Those claiming otherwise are selling snake oil.
If there are specific problems worth raising about PoS, please share them, I'm sure plenty of folk here would love to learn what they are.
My take is that it's probably an ESG thing, perhaps some funds voiced their concerns about the potential for Tesla stock to hurt their ESG ratings. There was never any question of whether holding and transacting in Bitcoin would eventually start appearing on the same page as Greta Thunberg, the only question was when. It seems Musk just drastically accelerated this outcome.
Primarily based in a country which is also the world's largest consumer of coal
> Its security model has yet to be proven on any network worth discussing. Those claiming otherwise are selling snake oil.
If there are specific problems worth raising about PoS, please share them, I'm sure plenty of folk here would love to learn what they are.
My take is that it's probably an ESG thing, perhaps some funds voiced their concerns about the potential for Tesla stock to hurt their ESG ratings. There was never any question of whether holding and transacting in Bitcoin would eventually start appearing on the same page as Greta Thunberg, the only question was when. It seems Musk just drastically accelerated this outcome.
> All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.
Tesla's engineering team received experienced in supporting Bitcoin for payments and treasury management. Tesla received quite a bit of PR for accepting Bitcoin. Selling Bitcoin also net Tesla a substantial ($101 million) profit. It is said Tesla does not have a marketing department, but it is marketing itself just fine. You don't give Musk enough credit, he knows what he's doing.
Tesla's engineering team received experienced in supporting Bitcoin for payments and treasury management. Tesla received quite a bit of PR for accepting Bitcoin. Selling Bitcoin also net Tesla a substantial ($101 million) profit. It is said Tesla does not have a marketing department, but it is marketing itself just fine. You don't give Musk enough credit, he knows what he's doing.
There are two main things incentivising me against using it as a form of payment.
1) Purchases with Bitcoin are a capital gains tax event. Or they might be? I can't be arsed figuring that out. It's hard to blame Bitcoin for this one.
2) There are not enough things that I am conveniently able to purchase with bitcoin for me to go full bitcoin (e.g. accepting salary payments in bitcoin)... This is a network effect thing. Every alternate payment system has to solve this problem.
1 is a massive barrier to solving 2. Regulatory environment needs to be fixed first.
1) Purchases with Bitcoin are a capital gains tax event. Or they might be? I can't be arsed figuring that out. It's hard to blame Bitcoin for this one.
2) There are not enough things that I am conveniently able to purchase with bitcoin for me to go full bitcoin (e.g. accepting salary payments in bitcoin)... This is a network effect thing. Every alternate payment system has to solve this problem.
1 is a massive barrier to solving 2. Regulatory environment needs to be fixed first.
> 1) Purchases with Bitcoin are a capital gains tax event. Or they might be? I can't be arsed figuring that out. It's hard to blame Bitcoin for this one.
Yep. There’s no way I would ever use crypto currency as a day to day currency.
Yep. There’s no way I would ever use crypto currency as a day to day currency.
Privacy-friendly coins may be the way out of the current regulatory mess.
Why is #1 a concern? If your BTC appreciated vs USD while you held it, then you'll owe tax on it. If it declined, then you can claim a loss to offset other gains. It's just paperwork. I would imagine that any BTC wallet services worth their salt will be able to spit out an automatic 1099 at the end of the year that can be imported into your tax software.
For #2, I can't see companies offering to pay employees in BTC - it opens them up to too much legal risk.
For #2, I can't see companies offering to pay employees in BTC - it opens them up to too much legal risk.
1) Cause it's effort... as opposed to one single capital gains event when I sell - I would have zillions to colate for all my purchases at different price points. It's not the fact of having to pay tax... it's the effort of tracking what tax I have to pay.
2) Mebbe - no idea either way.
2) Mebbe - no idea either way.
> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost.
It doesn't matter if the rest of the country isn't also on hydro. Currently mining just takes the green energy capacity away from non-mining use, which never went away.
It doesn't matter if the rest of the country isn't also on hydro. Currently mining just takes the green energy capacity away from non-mining use, which never went away.
> When Bitcoin does work, it's in situations in which those making the payment have few other options. They're blocked from taking credit card payments or interacting with the banking system. It's easy to dismiss those use cases, but they're real.
Bitcoin works remarkably well for shady activities. Ransomware payments, human trafficking, blackmarket dealing, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other illegal activities are worth mentioning.
Bitcoin works remarkably well for shady activities. Ransomware payments, human trafficking, blackmarket dealing, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other illegal activities are worth mentioning.
>Bitcoin works remarkably well for shady activities. Ransomware payments, human trafficking, blackmarket dealing, drug smuggling, money laundering, and other illegal activities are worth mentioning.
Not really. Leaving a permanant transaction history of one's crimes in the hands of multiple 3rd parties potentially for thousands of years doesn't work out too well if anyone is interested in prosecuting said crimes in the future.
Not really. Leaving a permanant transaction history of one's crimes in the hands of multiple 3rd parties potentially for thousands of years doesn't work out too well if anyone is interested in prosecuting said crimes in the future.
> All of this reveals a surprising lack of sophistication in the approach taken by both Tesla and Musk.
Unless it was a pump and dump scheme. Granted, he says they won't be selling it until later, but they can just say they've decided it'll never be viable later, then sell it. This tracks with your statement that mining transactions using more sustainable energy doesn't make sense.
Since crypto isn't regulated by the SEC, it seems like leveraging Tesla for a pump and dumb to generate capital is _not illegal_.
Unless it was a pump and dump scheme. Granted, he says they won't be selling it until later, but they can just say they've decided it'll never be viable later, then sell it. This tracks with your statement that mining transactions using more sustainable energy doesn't make sense.
Since crypto isn't regulated by the SEC, it seems like leveraging Tesla for a pump and dumb to generate capital is _not illegal_.
Crypto that is considered securities (by meeting the Howey test) is regulated by the SEC. Crypto that is treated as a commodity is regulated by the CFTC.
As far as I know all crypto is considered securities by the IRS.
The IRS treats crypto as property in general, not a currency. That’s why there are capital gains or losses with each transaction.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
[deleted]
Tesla contributes to misinformation.
Bitcoin transactions do not, in and of themselves, consume mining energy. A Bitcoin block is validated by miners who use the same amount of energy, regardless if there are 1 or 1000 transactions in the block. Thus if Tesla cares about "energy per transaction", this metric can go down by actually increasing the number of transactions, ie. by continuing to accept Bitcoin as payments.
It's mind-boggling the number of people who can't wrap their head around this. The easiest way to reduce "energy per transaction" is to increase the number of transactions, whether it's on-chain, off-chain, or L2.
Bitcoin transactions do not, in and of themselves, consume mining energy. A Bitcoin block is validated by miners who use the same amount of energy, regardless if there are 1 or 1000 transactions in the block. Thus if Tesla cares about "energy per transaction", this metric can go down by actually increasing the number of transactions, ie. by continuing to accept Bitcoin as payments.
It's mind-boggling the number of people who can't wrap their head around this. The easiest way to reduce "energy per transaction" is to increase the number of transactions, whether it's on-chain, off-chain, or L2.
> same amount of energy, regardless if there are 1 or 1000 transactions in the block.
Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number).
> this metric can go down by actually increasing the number of transactions, ie. continuing to accept Bitcoin as payments.
Are you implying that there are too few transactions to fill blocks right now, so Tesla accepting bitcoin will make blocks fuller?
You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation. More transactions (with fixed # of tx/10 min) = higher fees = more mining competition = more energy expenditure.
Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number).
> this metric can go down by actually increasing the number of transactions, ie. continuing to accept Bitcoin as payments.
Are you implying that there are too few transactions to fill blocks right now, so Tesla accepting bitcoin will make blocks fuller?
You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation. More transactions (with fixed # of tx/10 min) = higher fees = more mining competition = more energy expenditure.
«Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number).»
There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 (or off-chain)
«You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation»
Mining and validation are one and the same. A block simultaneously mines new coin and validates existing transactions.
There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 (or off-chain)
«You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation»
Mining and validation are one and the same. A block simultaneously mines new coin and validates existing transactions.
> There is no limit when transactions happen in L2
Basically nobody uses L2 transactions.
The amount of actual money that goes through 2nd layer solutions, is very small compared to on chain transactions.
Basically nobody uses L2 transactions.
The amount of actual money that goes through 2nd layer solutions, is very small compared to on chain transactions.
Right now, there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN, which I wouldn't describe as negligible. I guess the main problem here is regulation: if I spent it, would I be taxed? Volatility is a problem but probably not a big one in half of the world the live with unstable money.
> 65 mi available in liquidity on LN
By 65 million in liquidity, I presume you mean the same ~1000 BTC that has always been on the network, for 2 years now. There has been a slight uptick, in the last 6 months, but the amount of BTC on the network has stayed basically the same.
I don't really consider "People put 1k bitcoin on the network, 2 years ago, and then never removed it" to be a good example of usage.
What matters is usage. How many people are actually using it in actual transactions. Not some nebulous misdirection to a concept of "liquidity".
By 65 million in liquidity, I presume you mean the same ~1000 BTC that has always been on the network, for 2 years now. There has been a slight uptick, in the last 6 months, but the amount of BTC on the network has stayed basically the same.
I don't really consider "People put 1k bitcoin on the network, 2 years ago, and then never removed it" to be a good example of usage.
What matters is usage. How many people are actually using it in actual transactions. Not some nebulous misdirection to a concept of "liquidity".
> there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN
According to a fairly reliable source [1] it's actually $320 million (on the network + sidechains).
[1] https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/139252761698122957...
According to a fairly reliable source [1] it's actually $320 million (on the network + sidechains).
[1] https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/139252761698122957...
In theory that's true if the bitcoin network wasn't so congested. Hasn't every block been saturated for a while now?
A reduction of the value of Bitcoin would be the only thing that would result in less mining, as miners aren't incentivized to burn as much energy when the rewards aren't as valuable.
A reduction of the value of Bitcoin would be the only thing that would result in less mining, as miners aren't incentivized to burn as much energy when the rewards aren't as valuable.
This is a good point! It's worth noting there is a maximum number of transactions that can fit into one block
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem#Ba...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_scalability_problem#Ba...
I'm not sure Tesla / Musk says that. The second tweet he links is "Energy usage trend over past few months is insane https://cbeci.org" estimating annual energy consumption of 148.7 TWh. Not per transaction or anything. And that is an awful lot, more than the electricity consumption of Sweden for example, and up 2x on a year ago.
Musk would make a good politician. He mastered the art of the flip flop. This is why taking financial advice from twitter is generally a bad idea.
More that flip flops - the guy has the impulse control and general behaviour of someone afflicated with mania.
also taking crypto gambling advice from one of the worlds richest people when you have 10k in the bank might not be a good idea either
Is it a flip flop or did he just... change his mind? I mean, the guy has a long history of tweet-first-think-later. It seems not unreasonable to me that he got suddenly and violently into cryptocoins, did the same thing people here do every week when they learn about it for the first time, and then (being a billionaire) had trusted folks come to him to carefully explain all the externalities and his generally-strong-if-highly-distractable analytical mind made a different decision with better evidence.
I mean... I'm not saying Tesla's weird daliance with and then rejection of Bitcoin is particularly rational. I'm just saying it doesn't seem insincere.
I mean... I'm not saying Tesla's weird daliance with and then rejection of Bitcoin is particularly rational. I'm just saying it doesn't seem insincere.
The concept that one person impulsively changed their mind is not correct.
The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.
The board of Tesla will have agreed the plans.
Flip flopping is changing your mind, or your decision once its on record. The fact that we're calling it flip flopping just means that we're thinking of Musk in the same terms we think of a politician.
You mean changing your mind? The similarity to politicians is because he attracts the same attention politicians do. It's not the politician that's the same, it's the polity.
There is a far more eco-friendly alternative to proof-of-work (PoW) called proof-of-stake (PoS).
I wonder if a serious discussion will finally begin on moving Bitcoin to PoS. This will certainly have a strong opposition and will likely lead to a fork, i.e. two cryptocurrencies will exist at the same time, call them BTC-PoW and BTC-PoS.
In any case these news are a leap forward in the crypto space. IMO, replacing PoW by PoS is a bit like replacing incandescent light bulbs with LEDs at home.
I wonder if a serious discussion will finally begin on moving Bitcoin to PoS. This will certainly have a strong opposition and will likely lead to a fork, i.e. two cryptocurrencies will exist at the same time, call them BTC-PoW and BTC-PoS.
In any case these news are a leap forward in the crypto space. IMO, replacing PoW by PoS is a bit like replacing incandescent light bulbs with LEDs at home.
Proof of stake is the funniest scam that exists in the crypto space. Vitalik is a fucking genius scammer pulling off what he has with Ethereum. Premine the coin, leverage mining when hash rate is low to make more, then transition to a 'rich get richer' printing scheme when the preminers and miners ponzi'd up their asset as it costs more to acquire for newcomers. Just incredible.
It is interesting that people think proof of stake works. If there is no work, there is not time-lock in. It's just the whimsy of the majority at this time. Today's majority can re-write all of history if they feel like it. With proof of work, the past is locked in by the work done to validate it. Under proof of work, if there is just one honest node out there, it's provably correct and you can tell the others are lying. Under proof of stake, it's just the will of the majority.
Some people just can't see the economic absurdity of it. Imagine if the FED announced that future USD would be printed into the accounts of USD holders by balance size, but that you have to have a high initial balance to be eligible and that the poors need to assemble little pools of other poors to split a reward. That's proof of stake as proposed. It's that simple and that stupid.
Sounds kind of like how one can grow one's money by investing it in an index fund and sitting on it and how rich people can get richer with no income and a passive investing strategy.
How is it that PoW is better though? No single individual can mine profitably anyway. You also need to be part of a pool to get some share of the profits.
Right now the central bank wills money into existence and then gives it to other banks who already have lots of money. Change your lens and see the similar topologies.
Proof of stake still boils down to availability of resources. With proof of work, it was energy. With proof of stake, it's now energy and materials. If whatever crypto unit is based on proof of stake becomes sufficiently popular, it will eventually approach the incremental price of whatever object is used to build your "stake." Economic theory says that (assuming a competitive market) the selling price of the object should converge upon the incremental cost to produce the object.
Or, to quote Homer Simpson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY
Or, to quote Homer Simpson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8Yt4p_gJmY
> Economic theory says that (assuming a competitive market) the selling price of the object should converge upon the incremental cost to produce the object.
This does not need to apply always. Does money have the value equal to production cost?
This does not need to apply always. Does money have the value equal to production cost?
Very few things apply always. Obviously money doesn't, but money is not your garden-variety competitive market like carrots or coal. The only legal suppliers of money are the nation-states that issue it. If you tried to print "money" yourself, it'd most likely be worthless because either nobody would use it (ok, maybe some cryptocurrencies excepted, but for reasons that have more to do with anonymity and a desire to stash illicit savings with a potentially lower probability of forfeiture than anything else), or you'd get in trouble for counterfeiting.
My point is that this is not a hard rule, and using it to prove something about PoW is on shaky ground.
[deleted]
Ditto land and art.
You can't produce more land, so there is no marginal cost - and art is literally not competitive - what makes art "art" is that it's unique.
... or, more commonly, that art is protected by copyright.
What you said is not true in case of PoW, and we know it experimentally already - mining costs follow the price of bitcoin, not the other way around. You can look at the charts yourself.
It makes no sense to try to mine a crypto token if the cost to produce one is greater than its value. Advances in mining technology or the increasing value of crypto can help keep it profitable, but there are diminishing returns to investment in technology, and (one would hope) the value of Bitcoin will eventually stabilize.
Vanishingly unlikely. PoS would effectively destroy bitcoin's immutability, which is a huge part of the value proposition. And more importantly, a huge part of it's core principles.
Coins like Ethereum that have already proven that immutability isn't a core principle (DAO fork) are fine moving to PoS.
Most coins don't need their own PoW though. It's likely that we'll end up with one PoW chain and everyone else can periodically checkpoint themselves into bitcoin's immutable blockchain.
Coins like Ethereum that have already proven that immutability isn't a core principle (DAO fork) are fine moving to PoS.
Most coins don't need their own PoW though. It's likely that we'll end up with one PoW chain and everyone else can periodically checkpoint themselves into bitcoin's immutable blockchain.
Ethereum was running on PoW when that happened. If anything you've just made an argument against PoW and miner centralization, where they can just get together and roll back the chain. The same would be possible in Bitcoin and while it hasn't happened yet there, we've had instances of large mining pools trying to censor transactions. A PoS system with sufficient decentralization would actually be more resilient against both these threats than a PoW one where mining is done by ASICs, which means large mining centers as opposed to individuals running an Ethereum node from their homes.
This is a reasonable criticism. Let me try to counter.
PoW doesn't protect you from a large enough cabal of power (in Eth's case, developers and whale bag holders) controlling the direction of the chain, or censoring entities they don't like from continuing to contribute.
What it does do is ensure that this large cabal can't erase history that happened. The only reason Ethereum was able to fork was because it was still young, they moved very fast, and there was enough external incentive from all parties to ignore the lost mining costs. And even with all that, Ethereum Classic still exists with all the PoW post DAO hack preserved.
On the other hand, PoS has no cost associated with writing the blockchain as far back as you want. If a majority cabal of stakers agree to rewrite history, they just do it. They can rewrite the chain from the dawn of proof of stake with whatever changes they want and it looks equally valid as the "true chain". No energy intensive hashes needed.
With PoS, you have to compromise a large enough number of stakers to mutate the chain. Very little cost after that.
With PoW, you not only have to compromise the miners, but you need to force them to burn tons of real world energy to catch up to the current block to rewrite the chain. Insanely expensive and effectively impossible the farther back in time you go.
PoW doesn't protect you from a large enough cabal of power (in Eth's case, developers and whale bag holders) controlling the direction of the chain, or censoring entities they don't like from continuing to contribute.
What it does do is ensure that this large cabal can't erase history that happened. The only reason Ethereum was able to fork was because it was still young, they moved very fast, and there was enough external incentive from all parties to ignore the lost mining costs. And even with all that, Ethereum Classic still exists with all the PoW post DAO hack preserved.
On the other hand, PoS has no cost associated with writing the blockchain as far back as you want. If a majority cabal of stakers agree to rewrite history, they just do it. They can rewrite the chain from the dawn of proof of stake with whatever changes they want and it looks equally valid as the "true chain". No energy intensive hashes needed.
With PoS, you have to compromise a large enough number of stakers to mutate the chain. Very little cost after that.
With PoW, you not only have to compromise the miners, but you need to force them to burn tons of real world energy to catch up to the current block to rewrite the chain. Insanely expensive and effectively impossible the farther back in time you go.
Fair point, you'd need more energy to do that in Bitcoin, although I want to stress that by no means could you simply roll back months of PoS Ethereum 2.0 history at the snap of a finger.
The DAO reset was very controversial and people still talk about it years later. Prominent Ethereum devs have repeatedly stated there would not be a second one. This isn't to say it couldn't happen, but it would be a big deal and even more contentious and would lead to even more fallout than the first time, should it ever happen again. So it's not like big Eth holders can just get together and roll back the state at will.
Granted, it's still a concern any way you look at it for certain applications where you want absolute certainty over long periods of time, for example for having an immutable archive of events for future generations. Wouldn't it be great if all that electricity were used to provide a truly reliable historical record for the first time in human history? Bitcoin could be used to preserve news articles, encyclopedias and other such data. For everything else PoS chains seem a lot more practical though. We have to see the pros and cons, for most applications it makes no sense to sacrifice all the advantages good PoS implications bring for absolute long-term immutability.
The DAO reset was very controversial and people still talk about it years later. Prominent Ethereum devs have repeatedly stated there would not be a second one. This isn't to say it couldn't happen, but it would be a big deal and even more contentious and would lead to even more fallout than the first time, should it ever happen again. So it's not like big Eth holders can just get together and roll back the state at will.
Granted, it's still a concern any way you look at it for certain applications where you want absolute certainty over long periods of time, for example for having an immutable archive of events for future generations. Wouldn't it be great if all that electricity were used to provide a truly reliable historical record for the first time in human history? Bitcoin could be used to preserve news articles, encyclopedias and other such data. For everything else PoS chains seem a lot more practical though. We have to see the pros and cons, for most applications it makes no sense to sacrifice all the advantages good PoS implications bring for absolute long-term immutability.
I do see a day when every database that promises immutability periodically checkpoints the root of a hash tree of every piece of data they have into the bitcoin blockchain.
Whether it's the Internet Archive, the Library of Congress, or your personal git repo, if there's some piece of data that you may want to be able to prove hasn't been altered, you check it into the blockchain.
Whether it's the Internet Archive, the Library of Congress, or your personal git repo, if there's some piece of data that you may want to be able to prove hasn't been altered, you check it into the blockchain.
What is the use? You can’t recover the data from the hash, and the hash doesn’t prove the data is truthful.
Of course it doesn't prove truth, but it does ensure that the data hasn't been tampered with since it was published.
For example, some powerful entity might be incentivized to try to change the text of old news stories to better support their current agenda. If you can change our understanding of history, you can potentially manipulate the future. Records that include proof of immutability will go a long way to making this kind of power play orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.
For example, some powerful entity might be incentivized to try to change the text of old news stories to better support their current agenda. If you can change our understanding of history, you can potentially manipulate the future. Records that include proof of immutability will go a long way to making this kind of power play orders of magnitude harder and more expensive.
DAO fork has absolutely nothing to do with PoS. This is nonsense.
Actually it did.
> There’s another wrinkle: The Ethereum Foundation is on track to switch to a new consensus mechanism called “proof of stake”, and in that scenario, anyone who owns 14% of all ether will have tremendous control over the future blockchain.
https://www.coindesk.com/understanding-dao-hack-journalists
> There’s another wrinkle: The Ethereum Foundation is on track to switch to a new consensus mechanism called “proof of stake”, and in that scenario, anyone who owns 14% of all ether will have tremendous control over the future blockchain.
https://www.coindesk.com/understanding-dao-hack-journalists
DAO fork showed Ethereum to be centralised similar to a company therefore a database or PoS for the blockchain is a better fit than PoW
This is nonsensical. PoS is a mechanism for assuring transactions can get added to the block chain securely. It has nothing to do with whether the controlling interests are centralized or not.
If you could take control of all the miners, how much would it cost to rewrite the chain?
If you could take control of all the stakers, how much would it cost to rewrite the chain?
Answer this honestly and you'll see why people trust PoW much more than PoS.
If you could take control of all the stakers, how much would it cost to rewrite the chain?
Answer this honestly and you'll see why people trust PoW much more than PoS.
PoS is only suitable for more centralised projects. For Bitcoin it would remove the properties that make the network unique
It's a well known fact that Bitcoins are mined through renewable clean energy when over $60K and dirty coal dug by newborn baby labor when under $55K, therefore Musk did the right thing.
Cynicism aside, I was very curious if Musk can somehow push the crypto coins to be used as a currency. I guess that failed?
AFAIK manufacturing is a relatively low margin business that is sensible to price and supply fluctuations so it needs supply chain contracts for months if not years ahead which means using it as a currency that is not quickly converted to fiat must be like a huge challenge that only a financial machine building genius like Musk can solve.
Is there a data on how many cars were sold through BTC?
Cynicism aside, I was very curious if Musk can somehow push the crypto coins to be used as a currency. I guess that failed?
AFAIK manufacturing is a relatively low margin business that is sensible to price and supply fluctuations so it needs supply chain contracts for months if not years ahead which means using it as a currency that is not quickly converted to fiat must be like a huge challenge that only a financial machine building genius like Musk can solve.
Is there a data on how many cars were sold through BTC?
I find it shocking that only few people appear to understand why it makes no sense to talk about mining “transitioning to more sustainable energy”. Even here on hn.
What I don't get is, why people are talking about environmental impact per transaction. Transactions or not, the computers are churning constantly to solve the useless function that would produce the hash with the most 0s in it.
It really doesn't have anything to do with transactions(the fees are only a fraction of the profits). The energy impact would be precisely correlated to the fiat price since the miners will be paying for the energy and equipment in fiat.
Transactions or not, the higher the price, the dirtier the proof of work blockchain is.
Just look at the most recent block: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000002865...
reward: 6.25BTC fees for transactions: 0.5BTC
total revenue: 6.75BTC, that is ~ $350K at the moment.
Each block is mined every 10min on average, so it is 2.1M per hour. So the total energy consumption is limited to $2.1M per hour or $1.5B per month at this price. It would be $150M if the price was $5k instead and $30B if the price goes to $1M per BTC. When that happens, 1 transaction will amount to the energy consumption of an American family for 1 year or more. At $1M per BTC, $360,000,000,000 worth of energy would be wasted per year on calculating a hash of a block that is functionally exactly the same with the same amount of transaction as the one calculated for $360, $3.6 or $0.03.
I'm sure I'm missing something like investors betting on price increases, infrastructure elasticity etc. but the correlation must be roughly like that.
It really doesn't have anything to do with transactions(the fees are only a fraction of the profits). The energy impact would be precisely correlated to the fiat price since the miners will be paying for the energy and equipment in fiat.
Transactions or not, the higher the price, the dirtier the proof of work blockchain is.
Just look at the most recent block: https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/00000000000000000002865...
reward: 6.25BTC fees for transactions: 0.5BTC
total revenue: 6.75BTC, that is ~ $350K at the moment.
Each block is mined every 10min on average, so it is 2.1M per hour. So the total energy consumption is limited to $2.1M per hour or $1.5B per month at this price. It would be $150M if the price was $5k instead and $30B if the price goes to $1M per BTC. When that happens, 1 transaction will amount to the energy consumption of an American family for 1 year or more. At $1M per BTC, $360,000,000,000 worth of energy would be wasted per year on calculating a hash of a block that is functionally exactly the same with the same amount of transaction as the one calculated for $360, $3.6 or $0.03.
I'm sure I'm missing something like investors betting on price increases, infrastructure elasticity etc. but the correlation must be roughly like that.
People talk about environmental impact per transaction because a transaction is the "useful" part of Bitcoin (even the coins themselves do not really exist, they are actually the unspent outputs of transactions). Yes, since for now the block rewards are still much bigger than the transaction fees, the energy impact of miners is still not very correlated with the number of transactions; but you can still attribute all that cost to the "useful" work it did.
That is: the transactions did not (directly) cause that cost, but they are the "benefits" of incurring that cost. It makes sense to think about how many "benefits" you got from a given amount of costs, or inversely, how much cost there was for each unit of "benefit". To put it another way, if the costs are identical, it's better to have 1000000 transactions than just 100 transactions; "environmental impact per transaction" (or its inverse, "transactions per unit of environmental impact") captures that perfectly.
That is: the transactions did not (directly) cause that cost, but they are the "benefits" of incurring that cost. It makes sense to think about how many "benefits" you got from a given amount of costs, or inversely, how much cost there was for each unit of "benefit". To put it another way, if the costs are identical, it's better to have 1000000 transactions than just 100 transactions; "environmental impact per transaction" (or its inverse, "transactions per unit of environmental impact") captures that perfectly.
> To put it another way, if the costs are identical, it's better to have 1000000 transactions than just 100 transactions; "environmental impact per transaction" (or its inverse, "transactions per unit of environmental impact") captures that perfectly.
I don't think it's possible to decouple # of transactions and the price of Bitcoin though. Every additional Bitcoin transaction proves it is a feasible means of exchange, driving the price higher.
I don't think it's possible to decouple # of transactions and the price of Bitcoin though. Every additional Bitcoin transaction proves it is a feasible means of exchange, driving the price higher.
There are many other considerations that make a transaction possible. If you remove them, then a transaction wont have much value.
For instance, security of chain's history or censorship resistance are required. These features can fall apart quickly with incentive misalignment. They are tail risks and easy to ignore until it happens
Agreed - it is the mining rewards that drives the environmental impact.
I think the reason people (media) talk about transactions is that blocks and mining rewards are hard to understand.
I think the reason people (media) talk about transactions is that blocks and mining rewards are hard to understand.
PoW runs just fine on 100% renewable energy. That PoW pollutes at all is because society allows it. Nothing stops the EPA (and similar bodies across the world) from requiring exchanges in their jurisdiction to do taint analysis on newly-mined coins in order to determine whether or not they came from a "certified-green" miner, and if not, apply an extra carbon tax on them (or deny their sale outright).
I wouldn’t be surprised if no cars were sold by Tesla via Bitcoin.
A transaction of that sorts would certainly trigger various anti-money laundering regulations where I am from (somewhere in the EU).
A transaction of that sorts would certainly trigger various anti-money laundering regulations where I am from (somewhere in the EU).
This is pretty interesting, either they did a proper research before putting 1.5B$ into it, in which case they would already be aware of the energy consumption, in which case, why announce this now? Or they put that much money without proper research which looks pretty bad for Tesla in my opinion.
Most likely they changed course due to media/public backlash criticizing them for BTCs energy usage.
I think market manipulation is most likely.
Yeah, I think that is just the excuse, not the actual reason. How could he not know about this already?
Is it possible the bitcoin position was a hedge against chip prices? One would expect the two prices to be correlated. Price of bitcoin goes up -> more miners buy chips. I don't know, their bitcoin position otherwise doesn't make sense to me.
Environment... right... I'm sure this has nothing to do with the 15% loss today or 20% over the last month and shareholders being upset. I'm sure Elon just learned about the environmental impacts of POW, because no one has been talking about that for the last 5 years. No one.
Total crypto meltdown now. Get rich quick exists only in the movies. No shortcuts to earning wealth . That's why so many people in personal finance and investing recommend index funds.
Which is all fine and good until "get rich quick" are forced into your index funds.
[deleted]
Maybe I'm being overly negative and conspiratorial, but with all the stuff Elon Musk has done around Dogecoin and the amount of effort he has put into pumping it up makes me wonder if this was some kind of ploy to devalue Bitcoin.
I also wonder if sometime in the next 6-12 months we'll hear that Tesla is looking to accept Dogecoin due to it being more environmentally responsible (I don't know if that is actually the case, but who knows what changes will happen in 6-12 months).
I also wonder if sometime in the next 6-12 months we'll hear that Tesla is looking to accept Dogecoin due to it being more environmentally responsible (I don't know if that is actually the case, but who knows what changes will happen in 6-12 months).
He's a child who wants attention, and seeing that Vitalik got some today by trashing Shibua means he's going to try and pump Shibua next.
> I also wonder if sometime in the next 6-12 months we'll hear that Tesla is looking to accept Dogecoin due to it being more environmentally responsible
I mean his tweet right before this announcement was a poll asking just that, if Tesla should accept Dogecoin. So yeah. The guy is a clown.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392030108274159619
I mean his tweet right before this announcement was a poll asking just that, if Tesla should accept Dogecoin. So yeah. The guy is a clown.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1392030108274159619
It seems like Ethereum is what's going up at the moment. No idea why.
>> No idea why.
Mainstream adoption, Visa & Goldman Sachs using it as a settlement layer, actual utility, defi, etc...
Mainstream adoption, Visa & Goldman Sachs using it as a settlement layer, actual utility, defi, etc...
A lot more transactions on BSC.
https://bscscan.com/chart/tx
https://bscscan.com/chart/tx
Might be demand for shittokens. You need ETH for the transaction fees.
My armchair theory is that this is not some kind of advanced market manipulation but Musk actually changed his mind about this after initiating his carbon capture challenge. He seems like somebody who changes his mind a lot and he is fully in control of Tesla. It's pretty stupid that he "forgot" about the negative environmental impact of Bitcoin but it doesn't seem that far-fetched either.
Tesla should just cut out the middleman and make coal powered cars.
They’d need to burn silicon too’
But burning silicon is even more dangerous than burning coal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process
>When a star has completed the silicon-burning phase, no further fusion is possible. The star catastrophically collapses and may explode in what is known as a Type II supernova.
>The central portion of the star is now crushed into either a neutron star or, if the star is massive enough, a black hole. The outer layers of the star are blown off in an explosion known as a Type II supernova that lasts days to months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon-burning_process
>When a star has completed the silicon-burning phase, no further fusion is possible. The star catastrophically collapses and may explode in what is known as a Type II supernova.
>The central portion of the star is now crushed into either a neutron star or, if the star is massive enough, a black hole. The outer layers of the star are blown off in an explosion known as a Type II supernova that lasts days to months.
Maybe I am a bit too cynical, but I wonder if Elon Musk is looking to buy more Bitcoin and decided to depress the price? Would this even be legal?
I'm not sure what buying a Tesla with cryptocurrency looks like, but I realized if they're not careful, they could get run over during market swings and find they made $2,000 less on a sale. Today is a bad example, but the value is down 12% in 24 hours, some undoubtedly from this news. You can't afford spreads like that with Tesla's margins.
I think something like this is the real reason for this move. Bitcoin is inefficient when it comes to energy use, so it's a bad choice for small transactions, but for a single, large transaction, the environmental costs aren't that bad compared to making a car.
I think something like this is the real reason for this move. Bitcoin is inefficient when it comes to energy use, so it's a bad choice for small transactions, but for a single, large transaction, the environmental costs aren't that bad compared to making a car.
This guy really had John Q. Public thinking he is one of them
Purchasing big ticket items with Bitcoin will get stomped on in many regions in any case, as it is a way of dodging capital gains taxes. Or income tax if you are paid in bitcoin. Or GST/VAT. Same reason you can't swap a bar of gold for a car. I don't think governments are going to want to track official exchange rates for all the coins, and given coin volatility it probably wouldn't work well in any case.
More likely they’ll allow it but the seller has to report the info to the tax agency, who automatically sends the bill to the citizen.
Could it be that they noticed a hit to the Tesla brand with the green-conscious segment of their customer base due to the bitcoin investment which was starting to be reflected in a drop in car sales, and which they concluded wasn't going to be compensated by an increase in BTC's price. Therefore it was simply more strategic to reverse the decision publicly and strongly underline the green motive behind it?
It would be funny if right after the initial announcement, Satoshi comes out of retirement to buy a ten million Teslas out of BTC.
What would have happened…
What would have happened…
*to sell a million BTC to clear his conscience
He’ll do Eth next. Or well when it hits PoS I guess
Strong suspicion Elon is buying more BTC now that the price is dropping.
I can’t believe no ones pointing out that maybe they aren’t accepting bitcoin right now because they believe it’s about to experience massive volatility and/or drop soon.
It’s funny that he says “suspend.” Was there some marketing collective unconscious that uses suspend instead of just “stop?”
It’s ok to stop things and then start them later.
This reminds me of twitters “permanent suspension” instead of saying “banned” or “blocked” or “removed.”
Seems funny to use suspend that means temporary for things that just naturally end. Not the end of the world, but one more example of unclear, harder to understand speech.
It’s ok to stop things and then start them later.
This reminds me of twitters “permanent suspension” instead of saying “banned” or “blocked” or “removed.”
Seems funny to use suspend that means temporary for things that just naturally end. Not the end of the world, but one more example of unclear, harder to understand speech.
Suspend is an absolutely bog standard term to use in this context. Perhaps even preferable to "stop", for vague reasons having to do with this tweet being something the SEC is probably paying close attention to.
The question is not what the difference was then and now. The real question is why did Elon do what he did? It is very simple, he was trying to be the champion and pseudo figurehead of a group of people who would do anything to identify with him. In turn he gets free marketing, free cult figure status - same goes for smoking weed. I feel sorry for kids who lost stimulus checks believing him....
Pretty sure he saw this now deleted thread on Reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/nb1rki/cryptocurr...
From ElegantPoop:
> Well, it would appear by this image we have ourselves a sub 1% of bitcoin per transaction. Winning.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dogecoin/comments/nb1rki/cryptocurr...
From ElegantPoop:
> Well, it would appear by this image we have ourselves a sub 1% of bitcoin per transaction. Winning.
The image on that post has been deleted, and I don't really understand ElegantPoop's comment. Can you explain why the original thread would have been relevant to the Tesla situation?
For anyone that has had their bitcoins for a little while, cashing them out to buy a car will incur a hefty capitol gains tax to do so.
In this case you're not "cashing" them out, though. You are directly purchasing goods. Does that sort of thing still incur capital gains tax in the US?
> Does that sort of thing still incur capital gains tax in the US?
Yes it does.
It would be same as if you purchased a large amount of gold, and then exchanged the gold for a car, after gold had increased in price.
In the gold situation, you would also pay capital gains, and the US treats crypto the same as property, in this regard.
Yes it does.
It would be same as if you purchased a large amount of gold, and then exchanged the gold for a car, after gold had increased in price.
In the gold situation, you would also pay capital gains, and the US treats crypto the same as property, in this regard.
Still taxed. You're effectively selling them your Bitcoin for the car. Or think if it with any other currency: if you bought Yen as part of your investment portfolio and it increased relative to USD, you still have capitol gains when you cashed it out.
Basically whenever you leave any financial position that increased in value for something not a financial asset then capitol gains are likely (there are exceptions)
Basically whenever you leave any financial position that increased in value for something not a financial asset then capitol gains are likely (there are exceptions)
Imagine if buying goods didn't incur capital gains. That'd mean you can resell the goods in new condition for a very small loss and get USD but save much more in taxes. IRS said a long time ago that crypto was like any other asset, like gold.
Does it though? If you actually use bitcoin like a currency to purchase goods then I doubt these laws would work the same.
Oh yes it does, according to the IRS:
> Q16. Will I recognize a gain or loss if I exchange my virtual currency for other property?
> A16. Yes. If you exchange virtual currency held as a capital asset for other property, including for goods or for another virtual currency, you will recognize a capital gain or loss. For more information on capital gains and capital losses, see Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...
> Q16. Will I recognize a gain or loss if I exchange my virtual currency for other property?
> A16. Yes. If you exchange virtual currency held as a capital asset for other property, including for goods or for another virtual currency, you will recognize a capital gain or loss. For more information on capital gains and capital losses, see Publication 544, Sales and Other Dispositions of Assets.
Source: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/freq...
Which makes sense, right? Otherwise I'll declare my stock and property to be currency and directly exchange it at the dealership for a new car, avoiding the capital gain tax.
Yep, same thing as investing in a foreign currency that increases relative to the USD. When you convert it into a purchase you are realizing a gain, which is taxed.
Heck, even savings account interest is taxable.
Heck, even savings account interest is taxable.
As an occasional speculator in this stuff I've gone zero Bitcoin, quite a bit of Ethereum as I figure the energy and environmental cost of Bitcoin is too much while Ethereum is going proof of stake. I think it's probably the way things will go. I'm guessing Ethereum may take over as the largest cryptocurrency by market cap.
This is simple. The PR blowback was more intense than expected and they're trying to salvage their brand values.
The reactions on Twitter are crazy, the Bitcoin fanatics who never cared about other cryptocurrencies are loudy.
But that's a great move for crypto as a whole : once the environmental issue is resolved in people's mind, crypto (not necessarily Bitcoins) might attract many more investors, and we will finally have GPUs!
But that's a great move for crypto as a whole : once the environmental issue is resolved in people's mind, crypto (not necessarily Bitcoins) might attract many more investors, and we will finally have GPUs!
[deleted]
Why would you purchase anything when it holds such value that eventually just increases? ;-)
To buy a Tesla in Bitcoin you have to (probably) pay capital gains tax, plus whatever network fees are required for the transaction. Therefore it never made sense to me why anyone would want to buy a Tesla in Bitcoin.
So what might those other cryptocurrencies Tesla is looking at be at the moment? PoS coins? Ethereum? The last time I checked for a more future proof Bitcoin alternative I stopped at Nano, but that was in early 2018.
Tesla coin? It’s not that hard to fork a GitHub repo and do a search and replace
So as the dusk settles -- this whole BTC and DOGE drama was intended as an indirect lesson to not short TSLA and keep their stock in range where it is completely removed from fundamentals for just a little bit longer?
This is so 2017 and a lot of people just don't want to realize it, because of personal gain.
Reminder: in 2017 woocommerce, square, steam, ... Started to add crypto currency as payment method and then removed it again.
Reminder: in 2017 woocommerce, square, steam, ... Started to add crypto currency as payment method and then removed it again.
[deleted]
How on earth do you secure that Bitcoin has been mined with sustainable energy?! Makes no sense. Did Elon Musk actually write this and why is it in a jpg image?
It’s probably in a jpeg to dampen a sudden sell off that could be triggered by bots watching Twitter for buy/sell signals.
Isn't mining highly concentrated?
cuz of the character limit . elon and tesla bypass the usual PR firms and just post to twitter
This is short enough for a multi tweet tweet which would be the natural thing if it was actually Elon who wrote it.
He doesn’t strike me as the sort of the guy who would put his statement inside an image and I would expect him to understand enough about Bitcoin to know that there is no way to guarantee it being mined “sustainably”.
He doesn’t strike me as the sort of the guy who would put his statement inside an image and I would expect him to understand enough about Bitcoin to know that there is no way to guarantee it being mined “sustainably”.
You think maybe greenpeace had him locked in a room?
No. Some one else wrote that statement he posted ... and it was carefully vetted with pr and legal.
Pretty sure this one has been through both PR and legal.
BTC still dropping even 30 minutes after news. so much for that EMH assumption of all public info being digested by market instantly
It Tesla believes that Bitcoin is environmentally unfriendly, the logical thing to do is to sell all of its coins, as a lower price will lead to a lower level of mining intensity.
Finally, I've been waiting for the crypto bust. GPUs have been out of stock since last November.
Time for Crypto to go away for a while as it reinvents itself. In it’s current iteration it’s speculative, the only source from which its derives its value, which is shakey at best, and solves absolutely nothing atm.
Why the change happens now? My speculation is internal pressure from employees who don't want to accept the externalities.
Hah! Many layers of hypocrisy here, heh, but at least this is a better place to end p. I hope this triggers a sell off.
Why do you hope for a sell off?
It lowers the price of bitcoin and the price ties pretty closely with the number of miners.
Because Bitcoin is stupid and bad.
Hopefully people start to focus on cryptocurrencies with good fundamentals and actual use cases instead of tradition and dog memes.
Ada can probably benefit a lot from this, since it's proof of stake instead of proof of work and has potential to be used as an actual currency.
IMO, Monero also has good fundamentals and use cases (privacy). It's PoW, but from a technical standpoint, it's much, much better than Bitcoin as both cash and store of value.
Ada can probably benefit a lot from this, since it's proof of stake instead of proof of work and has potential to be used as an actual currency.
IMO, Monero also has good fundamentals and use cases (privacy). It's PoW, but from a technical standpoint, it's much, much better than Bitcoin as both cash and store of value.
Time for BTC to grow up. Grow up to PoS. And get transaction fees from $32 USD/each to < $1.00 USD each
Transaction fees on Bitcoin are ~2-4sat/byte (around ~1$ for most common transactions), I've been able to consolidate a lot of change outputs. Ether fees on the other hand are through the roof because of all the meme coins, it's been averaging ~200-300 gwei lately, even hitting 500+gwei today!
Chia is a great project, but proof of space and time is just another expression of proof of work. In this case the work is to procure disks, which are made from stuff, toxic stuff. I don’t think an environmental argument for chia works, no solar/wind farm can magic up Silicon for SSDs.
SSDs aren't required for Chia, they're just faster for plotting which is a one-time process anyway. Once plots are made they can be "farmed" (mined) indefinitely for the energy cost of idling drives. So the environmental cost is an up-front capital cost instead of an ongoing power cost which in my opinion is a lot better. And this is not to forget that the storage market is already huge anyway and that "procuring drives" can be used for storage other than Chia, whereas the energy wasted by ASIC Bitcoin miners is just a complete waste.
Wouldn’t be reusing those disks for anything that mattered. It’s “waste by proof of buying drives for mining.” Nothing wrong with that! Proof of work is all that matters. But it’s the same thing, it’s not actually a waste at all and it is equivalent to bitcoin. Spending energy is how we make coins trustlessly. It’s a Good thing.
People mad on twitter at elon. Welcome to the world of finance. Ruthless and unpredictable.
mstr down 10% ah
hmmm back of envelope math shows potential default if btc falls below 10k. https://greyenlightenment.com/2021/03/16/microstrategys-bad-...
I hope Mr Saylor saved some $ for the inevitable lawsuits. Very reckless on their part.
hmmm back of envelope math shows potential default if btc falls below 10k. https://greyenlightenment.com/2021/03/16/microstrategys-bad-...
I hope Mr Saylor saved some $ for the inevitable lawsuits. Very reckless on their part.
I hope he realizes that there aren't any cryptocurrencies that don't use energy & are properly decentralized.
Except of course for the number 2 crypto by mcap which is months away from proof of stake.
> months away
This is optimistic, to say the least. I think ETH2 is a great idea, and is headed in a great direction; but if you take a look at any of the client implementations (Prysm being the most popular), it's not exactly rock-solid software that I would stake $135,000 on. Not to mention that many of the proposed benefits of ETH2 are not in Phase 0. I mean hell, you can't even withdraw your validator's balance yet.
This is optimistic, to say the least. I think ETH2 is a great idea, and is headed in a great direction; but if you take a look at any of the client implementations (Prysm being the most popular), it's not exactly rock-solid software that I would stake $135,000 on. Not to mention that many of the proposed benefits of ETH2 are not in Phase 0. I mean hell, you can't even withdraw your validator's balance yet.
A more skeptical person would say it’s been months away from proof of stake for years now… I’m not bearish on this in particular but let’s wait for the thing to actually happen before celebrating it as a win I reckon.
I said "properly decentralized". Proof-of-stake isn't strong enough.
Coming Soon! (For 5 years!)
Algorand from what I can tell... but the tooling to run nodes will hopefully improve
Great, let's bring Bitcoin down to ~$200 or whatever it's actual value is.
And Bitcoin is under 50K.
Thank you, Elon, for saving the environment with just a single tweet.
Thank you, Elon, for saving the environment with just a single tweet.
I have no judgement either way about misanthrope, but I think it's become clear that Elon Musk is one. He laughs when his words harm people. He intentionally causes suffering in the world. He isn't trying to save the planet, he's trying to get off of it. He coerced employees to work against their better health. He likes Trump, if you don't like Trump. He's eliminated right to repair. His rockets burn a lot of fuel and produce a lot of CO2. His satellites block the the view of existing telescope infrastructure and add a lot of material to LOE space. He's extracting billions of dollars from the tax payers and he's the richest guy on the planet while people are literally starving, homeless, and suicidal.
For many, who once believed in him, their eyes have been opened. More to come, I'm sure. Slowly but surely, humanists are starting to see that Elon isn't on their side...
Any of our sides... not even his own employees, customers, or shareholders.
For many, who once believed in him, their eyes have been opened. More to come, I'm sure. Slowly but surely, humanists are starting to see that Elon isn't on their side...
Any of our sides... not even his own employees, customers, or shareholders.
Musk is a showman who has vision, but no lasting power.
Yep someone has exchanged his Muskcoin into a big pile of real money. Not inrerested obviously in reverse direction of exchange
These here might want to check out Gridcoin https://gridcoin.us:
... while Bitcoin secures its network through an energy intensive[2] proof-of-work scheme, Gridcoin uses a more energy efficient proof-of-stake system. ... nearly all of the energy goes to science - https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/GridCoin ... Gridcoin compensates researchers for contributing computational power towards BOINC research using an energy-efficient Proof-of-Stake process, instead of generating heat and using computational power for a Proof-of-Work algorithm ... nearly all of the energy goes to science - https://gridcoin.us/wiki/ ... do not require huge amounts of energy consumption to be mined. This makes PoS coins such as Gridcoin a more eco-friendly alternative .. - https://coincentral.com/what-is-gridcoin/ Altcoins like SolarCoin and GridCoin are better for the environment - https://medium.com/@johnniec/altcoins-like-solarcoin-and-gri... What if we could mine cryptocurrency using meaningful calculations with additional real-world benefits?- https://medium.com/adventures-in-volunteer-computing/cryptoc... Sustainable, efficient technology - With its unique PoR/PoS hybrid technology, the GRC blockchain uses PoS to secure its blockchain, while the entire computational capacity is devoted to performing computations for scientific research via PoR. This leads to a very efficient, and lean network, whose computational power is used for a noble purpose. - https://coinswitch.co/info/gridcoin/what-is-gridcoin One of the main advantages of Gridcoin is that crunching (“mining”) does useful scientific research - https://gridcoin.us/wiki/advantages-and-features Gridcoin attempts to address and ease the environmental energy impact of cryptocurrency mining through its proof-of-research and proof-of-stake protocols, as compared to the proof of work system used by Bitcoin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridcoin
The project can be found at https://gridcoin.us
p.s. the wallet can run on all major OS, the database will sync before you can finish you lunch and research crunching can be done on almost all devices including raspberrypi, android and old pcs
... while Bitcoin secures its network through an energy intensive[2] proof-of-work scheme, Gridcoin uses a more energy efficient proof-of-stake system. ... nearly all of the energy goes to science - https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/GridCoin ... Gridcoin compensates researchers for contributing computational power towards BOINC research using an energy-efficient Proof-of-Stake process, instead of generating heat and using computational power for a Proof-of-Work algorithm ... nearly all of the energy goes to science - https://gridcoin.us/wiki/ ... do not require huge amounts of energy consumption to be mined. This makes PoS coins such as Gridcoin a more eco-friendly alternative .. - https://coincentral.com/what-is-gridcoin/ Altcoins like SolarCoin and GridCoin are better for the environment - https://medium.com/@johnniec/altcoins-like-solarcoin-and-gri... What if we could mine cryptocurrency using meaningful calculations with additional real-world benefits?- https://medium.com/adventures-in-volunteer-computing/cryptoc... Sustainable, efficient technology - With its unique PoR/PoS hybrid technology, the GRC blockchain uses PoS to secure its blockchain, while the entire computational capacity is devoted to performing computations for scientific research via PoR. This leads to a very efficient, and lean network, whose computational power is used for a noble purpose. - https://coinswitch.co/info/gridcoin/what-is-gridcoin One of the main advantages of Gridcoin is that crunching (“mining”) does useful scientific research - https://gridcoin.us/wiki/advantages-and-features Gridcoin attempts to address and ease the environmental energy impact of cryptocurrency mining through its proof-of-research and proof-of-stake protocols, as compared to the proof of work system used by Bitcoin - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gridcoin
The project can be found at https://gridcoin.us
p.s. the wallet can run on all major OS, the database will sync before you can finish you lunch and research crunching can be done on almost all devices including raspberrypi, android and old pcs
Interesting, i know eth and cardano are moving to pos method and i feel like all cryptos have to inevitably move in this direction if they want to scale
@Elon I know how hard this decision was to make and state publicly. But thank you for listening to my concern and other skeptics of the Proof of Work based cryptocurrencies. Thank you.
[deleted]
This makes little sense — Elon knows the energy thing is BS. Rather suspect that some group has made him do it. On the day the inflation data is reported. A distraction for the financial media.
BTFD
BTFD
This is an excellent news for cryptocurrencies. It is tragic that most real-word integrations seems to focus on Bitcoin because it was the first mover when there’s hundreds of other cryptocurrencies that are more efficient and green than bitcoin. Bitcoin is pretty much the same it was in 2009 whereas there’s been a LOT of advances to question why anyone would own or use bitcoin today.
Now I’ll take bets on what cryptocurrency they’ll settle on next. Will it be algorand? Avalanche? Celo? The choice will be hard.
Now I’ll take bets on what cryptocurrency they’ll settle on next. Will it be algorand? Avalanche? Celo? The choice will be hard.
Thank god, a bit of sanity. I was seriously second guessing my cybertruck reservation, not even that much because of the environmental concerns, I think these might be solvable as the technology matures, more because of the potential for deflationary tokens to cause financial system collapse with a non-zero chance of causing the downfall of human civilization ( https://benoitessiambre.com/specter.html ).
I'm hoping the lines about not selling and looking at other cryptocurrency options are empty statements to save face.
I'm hoping the lines about not selling and looking at other cryptocurrency options are empty statements to save face.
So what changed? Well I think the biggest notable difference between then and now is then bitcoin seemed to be going only up. Now it seems to be going down. When bitcoin continues to steadily go down, it is a significant concern because Tesla will have to take losses on the cars it sells and will have reduced gross margins, which will result in their stock price tanking.
Musk smartly decided he did not want to risk his half a trillion dollar company on random bitcoin fluctuations. It is probably the right decision (although certainly covered up with false reasoning) but he should have never reached this stage. Tesla should have never taken bitcoin without provisions for automatically converting it into one of the currencies it pays its costs in.