Recently there has been a trend of inscribing data on the bitcoin chain representing issuance of new assets and in some cases media (images etc.). Keywords here are "inscriptions" "ordinals" "brc-20"
The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.
There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.
Why do games have to use so much electricity? They should be fine with a few kb of storage and maybe some minimal networking. Back in the day games were completely fine and playable in tiny cartridges. Games should be regulated to not consume a certain amount of network and processing power.
On the other hand, without the PoW mechanism of Bitcoin, it's impossible to have the properties that bitcoin has - global decentralised money and payment network. If you believe otherwise, make one! Very quickly no one will be willing to pay for Bitcoin, and all those "wasted electricity" will suddenly become available again.
You highlight a bunch of examples where government policy/implementation has failed miserably in the backdrop of higher and higher demand from it. I wonder how far this needs to stretch before we realise that the problem isn't that the government doesn't behave correctly, but that the whole idea that a government is a good allocator of capital and resources is flawed.
It makes perfect sense. McDonalds did something unconventional and apparently popular. People that found that valuable send the strongest signal you can send in an economy - money. "Corporate profits" take a look at the bank and they think "hmm, that seemed to work, we'll do more of that". They might not produce another gameboy game, that signal might need to be calibrated over further attempts to figure out why people bought more hamburgers. But certainly some signal concerning the approach they took will be loud and clear.
Speaking personally, they might be concise and precise but the arguments are nothing new and too often have simple counter arguments. That's the reason they're not addressed, there really is no reason to except to directly address the Molly white audience.
Consuming energy is a requirement for it to provide its stated benefits. If you're able to conjure the protocol which doesn't require PoW and still maintains the characteristics, you would be welcomed with open arms.
Why would people accept bitcoin IOUs when the real thing is more interoperable, saleable, private etc.etc. and of course doesn't require trust in the issuer. The answer is force [0]
Bitcoin continues to inflate until ~2140. The difference is that it inflates in a predictable curve and is not subject to the decisions of central bankers.
Inflationary policies also have a very tight link with speculation in the economy. You only need to look at the past 2 years.
I assume by "Monetary crank-ism" you mean scepticism of the dominant economic playbooks. That is very different from investment bubbles which the parent is talking about.
You can call it crank-ism if you want, but the movement behind Bitcoin's properties were born out of very real concerns about current economic models and what their effects are.
Sorry I actually meant to link that Opensea page but then forgot.
If you look at the bottom of that page [1], you'll see the events recorded by opensea. Also enable "Listing" in the filter. You'll see that there is a transfer 13 days ago and then it is listed. This is when the auction begins. Since then there was no sale, only bids. You can add the "Bids" filter as well to verify the timeline.
The conceptions of what happened is so completely removed from reality and it's disheartening to see commenters blinded by the hate for crypto stuff to the extent that they don't even bother to concern the details
Let's look at some facts.
The _first_ *Offer* made on this NFT was $280
The current top bid for this $29,000
It is not sold, so to say that its value has actually dropped is just silly.
If you imagine this in the context of a bid/offer market, this is like when market opens and a price hasn't been established because there wasn't a taker yet.
This almost reads like satire.
Banks and credit card companies are exactly not neutral, this is perhaps the only widely understood reason Blockchains and cryptocurrencies exist.
Which bank or cc company is going to jump on the opportunity of platforming an alternative to twitter that almost definitely going to include content that the institutions already voted wouldn't be platformed.
On the other hand, a fresh network of imaginary credits that perhaps might inherit some value requires no permission and can be setup by almost any entity.
Is there anything really inherent in Austrian economics about ignoring evidence? Hate to be that guy (source???), but this doesn't match up at all with my impression of the difference factions in economics. If anything, the economists who reject the current dominant economic tools seem to have more of an emphasis on empirical evidence than wishful thinking.
The speculation component of these new asset types has has created a high fee environment where instead of paying for bitcoin moving around, ownership of secondary assets encoded as data are being transferred.
There is currently a big controversy where one tribe says that these transactions are spam and should be banned via opt in from miners.