Bitcoin

Thanks Paul and Ninja for these replies.
Paul you are in the weeds! Good for you.
When i think about store of value i am thinking five years plus.
For others it could be more i.e. when they retire.

Ninja, we obviously have very opposite opinions on bitcoin, and we feel equally as strong about our respective opinions. 
It really is matter of letting some time elapse, and then we will see whose opinion appears to have been correct.
On that basis, I think we can simply hold a "lets agree to disagree" opinion on this and move forward, and be friends ;)

In the end, to try and wrap our novels of writing into something simple, I think our fundamental difference of opinion can be summarised in the following paragraph from your last post;

"Let me pose this question to you. Why do you think Bitcoin is the ultimate asset, when XRP (as a random example) outperforms Bitcoin on almost every metric. Transaction finality in ~3 seconds, 5,000-10,000 transactions per second, almost 0 energy expenditure, integration with the existing financial system, etc. I am not an XRP proponent, but it is technologically superior to Bitcoin on every metric, and by a long way. The only argument against it is that it is "centralised". Well fiat currency is centralised as well. The reality of the world that we live in is that there will be centralisation. A purely decentralised society is simply lawlessness and anarchy. Centralisation, and structure, is important for a well-functioning society. Society wouldn't exist without centralisation. "

In my opinion, the bold sentence is the answer to everything you said immediately before it. 

As for what comes after it in italics, that is the meat in our debate. 

Yes fiat is centralised, and to me that is the problem. But my difference of opinion from you is that the world is going to continue decentralising in every respect, including money, and that it will work, and it will work well. 
Lets not forget that this was the same argument with the internet - identical in fact. The internet protocol is decentralised, anyone can build anything and plug right in. It does not preclude it from regulation and taxation though - same as bitcoin. Hence why we do not have anarchy and lawlessness due to the internet being decentralised. I am sure you will disagree and argue that centralisation is necessary, and I understand your point of view, again it's just a difference in our opinions. 

Lastly, when I said that I am grateful for your debate and strong opinions, I really meant it. You have really helped me in figuring out how to explain these things, and also assessing the valid criticisms of bitcoin and its adoption. For example you've led me to researching more on the SWIFT system, among several other things. So thank you for taking the time on this! And please do keep it up! Although I also do want good chat about bitcoin in this thread, so maybe if you want to write a lot more criticising it, we could make a separate thread for that, just throwing it out there ;) 

Ajc, a few months back you said;

"Would also be interest to compare what rate you get between Easy Crypto and Swyftx (can't remember which was better last time I looked). They have to be taking a cut each time so probably worth a comparison."

So I was talking to some people at that bitcoin meetup the other week, and one was a very knowledgeable guy who put me onto a twitter bot that he set up, which regularly sends out how many satoshis you get for $100 from the exchanges available in NZ. And you are doing well on Swyftx ajc. They are cheaper than EasyCrypto. The cheapest however is a brand new bitcoin-only exchange called Bitaroo. I have just started using this. It works a little differently in that you transfer cash into it first, then buy bitcoin with your credit in the app. The bitcoin goes to your app wallet, so is not initially in your custody, but you can immediately withdraw without a fee. It's KYC, like EasyCrypto, so when you do your first withdrawal you have to go through an identity-proving process etc. 
So I'm doing it that way now. Every payday I transfer money into the app and hold a $NZ balance, and then I just buy the little dips during the week. You can buy as little as 1 satoshi at a time (lol) so it gives you good flexibility in that respect. 

For the record, here are the latest numbers from that tweet bot:

NZ$100 buys you:

Bitaroo: 292,400 sats
Swyftx: 292,100 sats
EasyCrypto: 290,700 sats
BitPrime: 286,500 sats

Thanks for that info. I've been liking Swyftx as you deposit via bank transfer (they just have an ASB account number), and withdraw straight to your bank for a flat $10 fee without the need for a middleman (I haven't yet done a withdrawal). So been doing similar in transferring a bit each pay and dollar cost averaging for bitcoin. As I said I currently have some split between 3 different exchanges in interest earning accounts (Swyftx, Abra and Binance), with the largest amount being in Swyftx given it's ease of deposit and withdrawal. I also had some in crypto.com but transferred that out to Swyftx recently when they caused a bit of an uproar with removing rewards you get with their crypto cards etc. I was using them as was thinking of getting the card eventually, but figured Swytfx seems so much easier being able to go straight to your bank when you're ready to cash out rather than a card that only lets you withdraw so much at a time etc. 

I know, not my keys not my crypto though so do really need to get onto hardware storage. The Celsius action the other week has spooked me a bit as the same could probably happen at any moment with the ones I use. I am really liking Swytfx though - they put out a podcast called 'Tapping into Crypto' every few days which has really helped with my learning. And they seem to be sponsoring something new in Australia all the time (the NRL being a big one), are very active on social media, and just merged with Superhero which appears to be the Australian equivalent of Sharesies - I think ultimately they will have a combined app for buying crypto and shares. So I don't see them rug pulling and going dark in the way the Celsius guy has but I guess it's still a risk.

Will have a look into Bitaroo. I guess Swyftx works in similar way as you first deposit cash then buy crypto with the NZD in your account. 

Hey Ninja, just on this bit;
"The network that is bitcoin, and the wide ranging implications on finance, are the really important thing here. For example I attended a meetup in the weekend of very intelligent bitcoin thinkers, at the forefront of this in NZ, and the price action and investment side of it was not mentioned once in 4-5 hours."

It has no implications on "finance". You may be meeting with "very intelligent bitcoin thinkers", but these people are not at the forefront of the financial industry in New Zealand. Bitcoin is not even a passing thought amongst the key decision makers in the financial industry in New Zealand, and globally. And if it is, it's in a negative light."

I don't agree with this. Bitcoin is certainly having implications and is being taken very seriously. The scrambling from the European Central Bank and the Bank for International Settlements shows that there is panic behind the scenes, they know how disruptive this is. 
An obvious implication is the remittance industry. When you have something like Strike, where someone can remit money to their relatives in another country with fees close to zero, and near-instantly, then you have real alarm bells for Western Union and the likes, who charge between 30% and 50% for that same service, which takes days. 
That is an amazing use case which would directly benefit millions, if not billions, of people, and they are mostly the poorer people of our world who need something like this the most.
This is happening right now. Strike are rolling out to countries who need this, one by one. This kind of service, enabled by bitcoin, brings instant benefit to some of the poorer people of the world.
The way it works means it is immune to the price volatility that bitcoin is experiencing in its early adoption phase. Strike is set up so that you can interface in your own currency, not bitcoin, if you like. So someone sending money back to their relatives in another country can select to send back $100, and the receiver gets $100 in their app at the other end, less the fee, which is very minimal. What they didn't see happening behind the scenes was that the $100 was converted to bitcoin, sent to the other country as bitcoin, then converted into the local currency and loaded to the receiver's account, all in a matter of a second or so. 
This is not possible with any fiat currency. Through Western Union etc it takes days, the fees are astronomical, and at both ends the people have to physically go to offices and line up to send/receive. 
This use case is playing out right now in the countries it has been rolled out to. It would be of huge benefit in this area of the world, for sending money back to the Pacific Islands. Tonga has the largest total percentage of income from overseas remittances of any country in the world, hence why Lord Fusitua is attempting to get bitcoin made legal tender in Tongan parliament later this year.
This is a major use case happening before our very eyes, keep an eye on that one... 

Dont pretend to understand this stuff but are Tonga going to have to rely on Eion Musk to recue their communications again if they were to sadly suffer another major event. Or if Putin decides to push the big or little red button what impact will that have on bitcoin.
In other words  if the internet and communications are severely compromised how does/can bitcoin work

To add to your point Paul re: finance not being interested i read this interview by Nikhilesh De from Coindesk and Adewale Adeyemo the United States Deputy Treasury Secretary.

Nikhilesh De:
Are there any ideas, tools or projects in the sector that you're really paying attention to, that have your interest on a personal level?

 Adewale Adeyemo:
I think the thing I'm paying attention to in this space, and the same thing I'm paying attention to, across the financial sector in general, is, what can we do in terms of financial inclusion? It's a major issue for me, not only internationally, I mentioned Afghanistan. But even think about here in the United States, there are so many places where you don't have access to finance. I think the question is, “how do we make the payment system more efficient and effective going forward?” I think the key is going to be how do we ensure that as more people participate, you have the right types of consumer protections in place, and you have the right types of transparency. 
Ultimately, you want to be able to provide remittances at far lower cost to people. I know that there are communities all over this country where people are sending money back to families and other countries, and they are being charged a great deal of money to do that. What we can do to reduce the frictions and the cost and that space, I think it's critical. It's also critical in our country to think through how we can use digital assets to reduce the cost of transacting here. So those are the things that I'm paying the most attention to.

On a personal level my partner has used crypto to send money to her family overseas as it is cheaper than the traditional way.

ballane

Dont pretend to understand this stuff but are Tonga going to have to rely on Eion Musk to recue their communications again if they were to sadly suffer another major event. Or if Putin decides to push the big or little red button what impact will that have on bitcoin.
In other words  if the internet and communications are severely compromised how does/can bitcoin work

The internet is a point of failure for bitcoin, but also all other money, and basically everything else in modern human civilisation. If it goes down globally, heaven help us. 
If your local internet is compromised you can't use bitcoin, just as you can't use the current fiat money system any longer either. No one is really holding cash, and without the internet I believe you can't withdraw cash from ATMs. Retailers could theoretically accept cash only, but nothing else without the internet. 
I attempted to pay with cash at a cafe yesterday and couldn't - they are cashless permanently. 
Fiat (and everything else in the world?) is now basically in the same boat as bitcoin when it comes to the requirement for the internet. 
If the internet is compromised on a global scale, then money is the least of your worries, it will be absolute anarchy. And again, you won't be able to use fiat money just the same as you won't be able to use bitcoin. 
I understand from Lord Fusitua that in the first 24 hours after the eruption, the only internet connection with the outside world was a satellite connection that was being used to run a Bitcoin Lightning Node in Tonga, which is an interesting little quirk! A lot of Bitcoiners are connecting their nodes using that technology to try and remove the risk of the internet provider middle man, which is an interesting development. I am wanting to get one myself, hoping it gets slightly cheaper, although I have seen one set-up for $400 recently which is do-able. 

There are so many things that have been brought up, it would take several essays to respond to everything! But Paulm, I have to agree, I enjoy the 'debate' and intellectual challenge.

Regarding central banks and remittances. Bitcoin is disruptive to central banks, yes. And this should be a major concern for all Bitcoin holders. Bitcoin is essentially challenging the central banks' issuance and control of currency and the supply of money. CBs will not give up their sovereignty with regard to this. People underestimate the power of these institutions - i.e. BIS, IMF, World Bank, UN, etc.. The BIS essentially is the central bank for central banks. The Basel Committee for Banking Supervision has an enormous amount of soft power, and the guidelines set at the BIS tend to get adopted by banking regulators. Seems likely that if market forces don't kill off BTC, then the state/gov/regulations probably will.

Now here's where it gets interesting. Central banks are looking at improving payment systems with DLT etc. They are actively researching, piloting, and in some cases implementing CBDCs. So yes, it seems likely that fiat currency will die at some stage, and everything will become digital.

Regarding remittances - I go back to my earlier point. XRP can transfer value between currencies within seconds at negligible cost, finality, and practically zero energy expenditure. Bitcoin is not efficient for remittances and won't be used in any meaningful way for remittances. I can see XRP/XLM being sanctioned for remittance usage in the future though.

Also another interesting point, Bitcoin has never experienced a global recession/slowdown/depression. It was founded after the last global economic crisis - the GFC. Bitcoin prospered in an era of persistent interest rate cuts, expansion of the money supply, and significant asset price inflation - from housing, to stocks, to crypto.

We are now in a stage where central banks are hiking rates into an economic slowdown. In other words, they are shrinking the money supply and this is crushing equity markets and other asset classes. This is only the beginning of this tightening cycle globally, and there will be more pain to come. Most likely is stagflation - prolonged economic contraction with persistent inflation.

Bitcoin is touted as the best inflation hedge out there, yet it's down over 65% in a period of record high inflation. 

Will be interesting to see how this story unfolds in the next couple of years or two.

Yes great points in that last post ninja, and the one before too.
The discussion of bitcoin as a store of value versus the short term volatility shows the sides of our debate: I am basically arguing it is the best store of value based on its fundamental principles, and how they line up so well for bitcoin to become the best store of value. And as you highlight with your frequent reporting of the short term volatility statistics, we have a way to go before bitcoin stabilises in that respect. I assume you don't think it ever will, while I anticipate that it will - but even I believe that will take quite some time, hence my recommendation of a having a long timeframe before you invest in bitcoin - it's not for making a quick buck, unlike the "crypto" world, which is basically a series of scams and rugpulls in my opinion. 
You also highlighted the challenge for bitcoin extremely well: The central banks. Yes they will try their darndest to kill it. Thankfully they will not succeed (in my opinion). For starters, I think they already would have if they could have. 
There is precedent for this in history too: The Florin. The Florin became the predominant currency in the world against all odds, but it succeeded because it was simply the hardest money. The hardest money always wins. Always. There is no time in history where the hardest money has not won, despite always having seriously powerful opposition. The market will talk. 
And you also raised a great point: Bitcoin has not been through a recession, so this is all new territory. 
Similar to the store of value proposition, the world has shown itself as not yet understanding bitcoin yet, and therefore is not ready to trust it as an inflation hedge. The vast majority of bitcoin holders are holding it as part of a portfolio, and see it as the riskiest option, hence the shedding of it during the downturn. I feel this will be the last recession where that happens. Perhaps it has come too early for the global understanding of exactly what bitcoin is. 
All of this stuff is based on the human behaviours, whereas I am zeroed in on the fundamental principles. The overwhelming feeling I get as I get deeper in this is that most of the population simply don't get this yet. But when they do, watch bitcoin explode. 
Ultimately the theory with bitcoin is that if the world shifted to it as the financial standard, then boom-bust cycles would be consigned to the history books. The way bitcoin works means that these cycles would simply no longer occur. The boom-bust of the capital markets is caused by the way that fiat works, so remove fiat from the equation, and those bubbles are done with. It's a big shift, and major blue-sky thinking, but the more I read the more I think it's real, and that it will happen. 
Re: XRP: Yes that could work if the fiat standard remains the way in which the world works. It would simply be a tool that disrupts the remittance market, and allows for better remitting with fiat money. But I think bitcoin is bigger than that, it revolutionises the entire financial world, not just one aspect of it. The great advantage in this area is that it is already happening successfully with bitcoin, while XRP is still just a theory, no one is actually doing this yet, or even marketing it for use to remit right now. The discussion within the US around the regulation of crypto means that entire world is being slowed down, and is mired in uncertainty. Meanwhile the SEC has made clear that bitcoin does not fall into the "crypto" definition, it is not a security, so the path forward for bitcoin is much clearer, and innovators are moving ahead strongly, and rolling out solutions right now. I think bitcoin has the jump on XRP and everything else, and is entrenching itself in this space already. 
Lastly, yes, I know what you mean: We've covered so much ground, there is so much more we would like to respond to in each other's points, but it would result in much longer posts than the ones we're already writing. It's too difficult to go point by point on every little thing. But I think the discussion is flowing ok, hopefully it's interesting to people and not too much of a deluge!
If there are any particular points that have not been fleshed out from both sides, that people are interested in, then very keen for it to be raised and those can be discussed further. 
I hope that the respective sides of the argument are useful to people wanting to find out more about bitcoin! 

Hey everyone
We are setting up Wellington's first proper Bitcoin Meet Up (note: Bitcoin, not Crypto). 
This will be on Saturday, September 17th, at 2pm. Still in discussions with different venues, will confirm that soon. 
We are setting up a cool little system on the Lightning Network to enable attendees to purchase drinks using bitcoin, via any Lightning Wallet. At the end of the meet up we will give that bitcoin away, either to attendees, a charity, or a combination of both (still working through details). 
Let me know if you might attend, I'm just getting an idea of potential numbers at this point. 
A chance to just chat casually about bitcoin and have a bit of fun trading satoshis!
We plan to make this a regular event moving forward. 
Cheers!
EDIT: VENUE CONFIRMED: The Fork and Brewer, Bond Street, Wellington

Could potentially be interested depending on what else I end up having on, although I couldn't contribute much to a discussion. I'd be more of a listener/learner.
How many people typically come to these things?

Looks like probably somewhere between 20 and 40 people at this stage. 
The chat is generally about bitcoin theory/adoption etc, rather than any trading and price discussion. There is a monthly "crypto" meetup at Blend bar that has been going a while, that would be better for trading discussion.  
I went to bitcoin meetup in Auckland and there were about 30 there, a few of them are travelling down for this one too. 
Yes listening/learning is a great option, the people will be very friendly and willing to impart knowledge. 
In Auckland I was chatty in some circles, but in others I was out of my technical depth and was just listening and learning.

not shilling but i am backing nimiq. if that coin goes proof of stake it could have the bandwidth to be a legit use case coin.

Proof-of-stake is an inequitable system that is easily corruptible by the most wealthy and powerful. Our current fiat financial system is essentially proof-of-stake. 
Bitcoin fixes this. 

It's a scam that is destroying the planet by accelerating global warming.
Cryptocurrencies already use more electricity than the entire country of Argentina.

Bevan

It's a scam that is destroying the planet by accelerating global warming.
Cryptocurrencies already use more electricity than the entire country of Argentina.

etherium just switched to proof of stake which dropped consumption by 99.95%, so energy consumption will change

Your opinion on whether or not the energy used to secure bitcoin is a total waste is a subjective one.
If you believe that bitcoin is the financial future and will eventually form the bedrock of worldwide transactions and stores of value, then the energy use is a feature, not a bug. It is important that the effort expended to earn value is reflected in the amount of value that you receive in return. This is best achieved by using energy, and showing proof that you have expended work for the value that you earn. More energy use in bitcoin is beneficial, and it should continue to increase as bitcoin proliferates. This is protection of the value network, and provides the proof that you have earned what you have received. 
More importantly it's far far less energy intensive than the energy used to support the current fiat system, which is essentially the military industrial complex. You must assess the full structure that supports the fiat system and the energy, death and misery that entails, in order to measure it against the energy input into bitcoin. 
If you are going to measure the total energy used and determine that 100% of that is a waste in your opinion, then you must assess all things that use energy and make the same assessment.
For example, I do not play computer games. I am not interested in it and see it as a time-wasting exercise. The energy used to support the gaming industry and everything around it far outweighs the energy use of bitcoin. Is that not a problem if we are making the correct comparisons here?
I do not own a clothes dryer. I prefer to dry the old-fashioned way. The total energy used for clothes drying throughout the world far outweighs that to support the bitcoin network. Why should I be tolerant of the energy these lazy people are wasting, drying their clothes with machines?
Etherium has now moved to a vastly more centralised system that favours the wealthiest. The minting of new currency is now based on how much of that currency you own, instead of how much effort you put into creating it. This is a neat reflection of the current fiat system and a key problem with it - the rich get richer, and have increasingly more control over the money supply. It is a fatal error and now aligns Etherium with the existing power structures in the fiat world. 
Having said all of this, the latest studies and evidence coming out of bitcoin are very exciting when it comes to energy. Bitcoin is now being seen as eventually becoming carbon-negative. The latest US govt study out of the Whitehouse is in agreement with many other studies already seen, which have identified bitcoin mining as the number one way to mitigate methane emissions. 
Bitcoin mining is most profitable when using stranded or wasted energy sources. Mining using coal and oil based energy is the least profitable way to do it. So it is actually incentivised to use the least impactful energy sources, rather than needing subsidies or moral actors to do this, unlike every other industry e.g. electric cars. This is why bitcoin is the cleanest industry (or very near to it) when it comes to the percentage of energy that is coming from renewable, stranded, or wasted energy sources - most estimates now are upwards of 70% of bitcoin mining coming from these sources. 
The methane research however is the most exciting. Bitcoin is starting to move from renewable energy sources to sources that actually reduce impacts on the environment i.e. carbon negative. Methane emissions are vastly worse than CO2 emissions for the environment, and bitcoin mining is now seen as the no.1 way to prevent these emissions, by mining with power generated from these emissions, and thus preventing their damaging release into the atmosphere. This is the latest wave of this type of behaviour in bitcoin - bitcoin has already basically secured the flaring of natural gas in the US as the number one use of that energy source, which is preventing the emissions of flared (wasted) gas energy into the atmosphere. Bitcoin mining is the number one way to create a business case to take wasted, stranded, and atmospheric-damaging energy, and prevent it's loss, or releasing it into our atmosphere. 
I realise you may find some of this stuff hard to believe, but it is cutting edge research and you will start to see it come out over the next few years. 

Come to our bitcoin meetup today at the Fork and Brewer, Bond Street Wellington, at 2pm, and learn more! I would be happy to discuss this with you. 

To be fair though, the current financial systems footprint is massive compared to crypto.

Meetup was awesome.
Doing it again in 2 months, tentative date Nov 26. Also planning events for Auck and Chch. Will post dates here as well for anyone who might have their interest perked ;) 

image.png 409.3 KB

image.png 372.45 KB

Ryan

To be fair though, the current financial systems footprint is massive compared to crypto.

Yeah, but the scale is so so different - like 1 BTC transaction is according to this source equivalent to 1,472,509 VISA transactions, and the time it takes to process that bitcoin transaction is much slower. 

Talk of the military industrial complex starts getting subjective.

Bullion

Ryan

To be fair though, the current financial systems footprint is massive compared to crypto.

Yeah, but the scale is so so different - like 1 BTC transaction is according to this source equivalent to 1,472,509 VISA transactions, and the time it takes to process that bitcoin transaction is much slower. 

Talk of the military industrial complex starts getting subjective.

that's my point, it's disengenuous to compare them because of the scale difference.

Ryan

Bullion

Ryan

To be fair though, the current financial systems footprint is massive compared to crypto.

Yeah, but the scale is so so different - like 1 BTC transaction is according to this source equivalent to 1,472,509 VISA transactions, and the time it takes to process that bitcoin transaction is much slower. 

Talk of the military industrial complex starts getting subjective.

that's my point, it's disengenuous to compare them because of the scale difference.

I think you missed Bullion's point.

You're right, I assumed he meant that one Bitcoin transaction has the same energy consumption as 1 million visa transactions.

Bulions point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, one transaction is one transaction. Unless we're talking lightning network.

Ryan

You're right, I assumed he meant that one Bitcoin transaction has the same energy consumption as 1 million visa transactions.

Bulions point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, one transaction is one transaction. Unless we're talking lightning network.

My point is that you can't compare the energy consumption of the current financial system to crypto because it is just vastly more massive; and also comparing VISA transactions to bitcoin transactions, VISA transactions being vastly more energy efficient. 

Bullion

Ryan

You're right, I assumed he meant that one Bitcoin transaction has the same energy consumption as 1 million visa transactions.

Bulions point doesn't make a lot of sense to me, one transaction is one transaction. Unless we're talking lightning network.

My point is that you can't compare the energy consumption of the current financial system to crypto because it is just vastly more massive; and also comparing VISA transactions to bitcoin transactions, VISA transactions being vastly more energy efficient. 

Yep, we're agreeing then.

The lightning network is what carries the load of day-to-day transactions for the bitcoin monetary system.
On-chain transactions (which are what you are referring to Bullion) are for final settlement, given the 10-60 minute settlement time and higher fees involved. 
It should also be noted that the energy use of the bitcoin network does not scale with that transaction volume, so although it's a neat mathematical equation to divide the energy use by on-chain transactions, it is not how the system scales.
The lightning network, which is where day-to-day transactions take place, is vastly more energy efficient, and faster, than VISA, Mastercard, Paypal etc, and has far more capacity for scaling. 
Although bitcoin works in a vastly different way than the current financial system, if you want to make comparisons, you must compare the right layers with each other.
Lightning is the comparison with Visa/Mastercard/Paypal and any other transactional fiat network.
On-chain is the comparison with SWIFT and the full military industrial and power structures that support the petro-dollar. That means you should be comparing the energy use etc of bitcoin mining with all military, government, central banking, and any other power structures in the fiat world, to get a true picture of the possibilities with bitcoin. 

paulm

The lightning network is what carries the load of day-to-day transactions for the bitcoin monetary system.
On-chain transactions (which are what you are referring to Bullion) are for final settlement, given the 10-60 minute settlement time and higher fees involved. 
It should also be noted that the energy use of the bitcoin network does not scale with that transaction volume, so although it's a neat mathematical equation to divide the energy use by on-chain transactions, it is not how the system scales.
The lightning network, which is where day-to-day transactions take place, is vastly more energy efficient, and faster, than VISA, Mastercard, Paypal etc, and has far more capacity for scaling. 
Although bitcoin works in a vastly different way than the current financial system, if you want to make comparisons, you must compare the right layers with each other.
Lightning is the comparison with Visa/Mastercard/Paypal and any other transactional fiat network.
On-chain is the comparison with SWIFT and the full military industrial and power structures that support the petro-dollar. That means you should be comparing the energy use etc of bitcoin mining with all military, government, central banking, and any other power structures in the fiat world, to get a true picture of the possibilities with bitcoin. 

I don't think you can say that the entirety of the military, government, legal and other would not exist if bitcoin was the de facto currency - that's ridiculous. 

Also, what happens if there is a incomplete transaction in bitcoin are there provisions like chargebacks with credit cards?

With bitcoin you have to wait for the block to be mined onto the main chain - that's why you wait around 20 minutes for a transaction to complete (it can be more or less, depending on how much money you're paying the miners to complete the transaction). Once it's on the chain it's guaranteed to be complete, so any incomplete transaction will occur within that 20 minute period and the funds won't be removed from your wallet.

With lighting network (I believe, it's been years since I've done anything with crypto and lightning network started after I stopped being as involved) a transaction is complete when all parties confirm it's complete, but it's not guaranteed to be complete until the block it appears on is mined. I have no idea what happens if there's a dispute between parties.

For comparison, I used to work in payments, and although money would appear in a bank account immediately, it wasn't actually confirmed until the over night batch processing. 

Bullion

paulm

The lightning network is what carries the load of day-to-day transactions for the bitcoin monetary system.
On-chain transactions (which are what you are referring to Bullion) are for final settlement, given the 10-60 minute settlement time and higher fees involved. 
It should also be noted that the energy use of the bitcoin network does not scale with that transaction volume, so although it's a neat mathematical equation to divide the energy use by on-chain transactions, it is not how the system scales.
The lightning network, which is where day-to-day transactions take place, is vastly more energy efficient, and faster, than VISA, Mastercard, Paypal etc, and has far more capacity for scaling. 
Although bitcoin works in a vastly different way than the current financial system, if you want to make comparisons, you must compare the right layers with each other.
Lightning is the comparison with Visa/Mastercard/Paypal and any other transactional fiat network.
On-chain is the comparison with SWIFT and the full military industrial and power structures that support the petro-dollar. That means you should be comparing the energy use etc of bitcoin mining with all military, government, central banking, and any other power structures in the fiat world, to get a true picture of the possibilities with bitcoin. 

I don't think you can say that the entirety of the military, government, legal and other would not exist if bitcoin was the de facto currency - that's ridiculous. 

Also, what happens if there is a incomplete transaction in bitcoin are there provisions like chargebacks with credit cards?

They will exist, but they will not need to consume nearly as much energy, require nearly as much funding, or create anywhere near the volume of emissions, as they do under a fiat standard. 
Under a bitcoin standard the military's role in the world would be massively reduced. The world's currency now is the petrodollar, hence why we have such conflict in the middle east, and enormous military spending concentrated in that area, or related to that area. With bitcoin, military power to take or protect financial assets is of no use. It is a peaceful currency - it cannot be taken or held by force. The war for bitcoin will be a peaceful race for energy production, and because bitcoin is incentivising for green/wasted/renewable/stranded energy, this will also be the best thing for our environment that you can imagine. Subsidies and legislation will pale into comparison to what bitcoin will do for the greening of energy production. It is the key to the future in my opinion and I cannot wait until we start to see this playing out. 
Currently the US and other countries deficit-spend to boost their military. It is astonishing how much is spent on their forces. Under a bitcoin standard they would simply not be able to afford it, and they would not need it. 
Regarding your second question, a bitcoin transaction itself cannot be "reversed", in the same way that the exchanging of cash between two people cannot be "reversed".
If you agree that the exchange should not have happened, you give it back. If there needs to be legalities and governance around that process, then it will be built or enabled. And the record would be there in the blockchain - a transaction where it was paid, and a transaction where it was paid back. 
In terms of transaction reversal, perhaps think of bitcoin as cash - physical money. When you give it to someone, it's the same as giving them physical cash. If you want it back, then you need to ask for it back. You can't just take it, otherwise you shouldn't have given it to them in the first place. If there is a legal case that they should be giving it back, then it is the same as now - you can take it up with authorities. 
These are all excellent questions and queries, same things that ran through my mind once. It's quite a mental hump to get over when you start to really understand bitcoin and the possibilities. 

Ryan

With bitcoin you have to wait for the block to be mined onto the main chain - that's why you wait around 20 minutes for a transaction to complete (it can be more or less, depending on how much money you're paying the miners to complete the transaction). Once it's on the chain it's guaranteed to be complete, so any incomplete transaction will occur within that 20 minute period and the funds won't be removed from your wallet.

With lighting network (I believe, it's been years since I've done anything with crypto and lightning network started after I stopped being as involved) a transaction is complete when all parties confirm it's complete, but it's not guaranteed to be complete until the block it appears on is mined. I have no idea what happens if there's a dispute between parties.

For comparison, I used to work in payments, and although money would appear in a bank account immediately, it wasn't actually confirmed until the over night batch processing. 

Re: The Lightning network and confirming/disputing transactions, that's not quite correct. But I am perhaps not technical enough to explain it.
An example is that last night I transferred bitcoin from my lightning wallet into my on-chain wallet, and now have it in my custody as on-chain. I don't imagine that all the various channels I received that bitcoin through have been closed, so I have a clear situation there where I've taken lightning bitcoin and stored it on-chain, and I don't require any further confirmation or the closure of channels to know that it is mine, it already is. Not sure of all the technical stuff going on there but it's certainly not a case where those transactions can be rendered invalid or incomplete at this point, I have that bitcoin and no one can take it. 

btk meetup.png 435.59 KB

FTX exchange going under now.
Stay away from crypto ponzi schemes and exchanges where you do anything but withdraw bitcoin out to your own wallet. 
Store your bitcoin in your own wallet, look after your keys, don't buy sh*tcoins.

Learn more here on Saturday ;)
 

 

paulm

FTX exchange going under now.
Stay away from crypto ponzi schemes and exchanges where you do anything but withdraw bitcoin out to your own wallet. 
Store your bitcoin in your own wallet, look after your keys, don't buy sh*tcoins.

"Not your keys, not your crypto."

Binance is buying them