Louisiana gaf onlangs een schreeuw naar het succes van Bitcoin in een nieuwe resolutie.

Bitcoin heeft de afgelopen maanden een steeds grotere acceptatie gekregen te midden van een stijging van meer dan $ 60.000

De regering van de Amerikaanse staat Louisiana heeft onlangs een resolutie vrijgegeven waarin zij enkele van de prestaties van Bitcoin ( BTC ) noteerde .

„DAAROM WORDT BESLOTEN dat het Huis van Afgevaardigden van de Wetgevende macht van Louisiana hierbij Satoshi Nakamoto prijst voor zijn bijdrage aan de economische veiligheid“, zei Kamerresolutie nr. 33 van Rep. Mark Wright. Volgens een artikel van The Hill is het document donderdag ondertekend .

De schreeuw naar de anonieme Bitcoin-maker Satoshi Nakamoto kwam nadat het document BTC een schouderklopje gaf voor zijn succes in termen van acceptatie en marktkapitalisatie. De eerste regels van de resolutie luiden:

„Om Bitcoin te prijzen voor zijn succes door het worden van het eerste gedecentraliseerde activum van een biljoen dollar en om de staat en lokale overheden aan te moedigen manieren te overwegen die hen kunnen helpen te profiteren van het toegenomen gebruik van deze nieuwe technologie.“

Bitcoin behaalde een marktkapitalisatie van meer dan $ 1 biljoen begin 2021

De mijlpaal werd bereikt na het breken van het record van 2017, dat eind 2020 werd bereikt.

Het Louisiana-document beschreef een aantal details over Bitcoin, waaronder de prevalentie, de decentralisatie en het gebruik ervan. De resolutie wees zelfs naar het activum als een gouden alternatief. „Bitcoin, dat mogelijk goud zou kunnen vervangen als geldreserve, is beperkt en eindig en er mag een maximale capaciteit van slechts eenentwintig miljoen bitcoins worden geproduceerd“, aldus het document.

In het afgelopen jaar hebben een aantal bedrijven Bitcoin gekocht als een asset , wat heeft geleid tot meer algemene aandacht .

 Record run equals record consumption – Bitcoin’s CO2 emissions divide minds

Bitcoin has never consumed so much electricity over such a long period of time. A dispute over environmental sustainability is attached to this.

The current record run of Bitcoin (BTC) also ensures increased competition among crypto miners. This in turn causes them to consume excessive amounts of electricity, which has now sparked a debate in Bitcoin Code the crypto community about the sustainability and environmental impact of the market-leading cryptocurrency.

As Digiconomist’s Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index shows, Bitcoin’s electricity consumption has also been at a record high since the end of 2020. For example, the estimated annual consumption since then is more than 77 terawatt hours (TWh). Although similarly high peaks have been reached in the past, this is the first time such a value has been recorded over a longer period.

The almost 77.8 TWh per year that Bitcoin is currently „eating“ is comparable to the entire consumption of the South American country Chile within one year. The resulting carbon footprint of the crypto market leader is accordingly staggering, amounting to almost 37 megatonnes (Mt), which is equivalent to the CO2 emissions of New Zealand.

This excessive emission is once again sparking debate in the crypto community about how environmentally sustainable the market-leading cryptocurrency really is.

Charles Hoskinson, the founder of the Cardano crypto project and a former co-founder of Ethereum, attests to Bitcoin’s „incredibly high power consumption“. To make matters worse, in his view, „this problem will never be solved because of the way it is designed“. As Hoskinson explains to CNBC, the Proof-Of-Work (PoW) consensus mechanism is responsible for this. Since this mechanism is fundamentally anchored to the Bitcoin blockchain, there would be no prospect of improvement; on the contrary, the problem would only worsen as the crypto market leader gains more adoption:

„The more successful Bitcoin becomes, the higher the price goes. The higher the price goes, the more competition there is among Bitcoin miners. The more competition there is, the more energy is used for mining.“

Hoskinson counters that the Cardano blockchain only requires 6 gigawatt hours (GWh) to operate because it is based on the so-called Proof-Of-Stake (PoS) consensus process, which is far less resource intensive.

Other voices in the crypto community, however, argue that the Bitcoin phenomenon, with all its revolutionary potential, certainly justifies exceptionally high power consumption. Meltem Demirors, the chief strategist of CoinShares, also takes this line, seeing the debate more as a battle for interpretive sovereignty:

   „Some people want to determine what is good and what is bad electricity consumption. Bitcoin is far more transparent about that in terms of power consumption than most other industries.“

To this end, she adds that a debate about power consumption also inevitably means a debate about purpose, thus causing critics to question the legitimacy of Bitcoin as a whole: „When we write and store emails, that also consumes power, but no one would think that’s a bad form of power consumption.“

So although Bitcoin’s required energy use is not going down anytime soon, the crypto market leader uses less electricity than unused, but connected, household appliances in the US. As a study by Michel Rauchs, a researcher at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, shows, the Bitcoin blockchain could run for two years on the electricity drawn by these devices alone.

Proof of Work or Proof of Stake: The different consensus procedures divide minds. A dispute.

The article first appeared in the November issue of BTC-ECHO’s crypto compass . More information on the monthly magazine with the main topics digital assets and blockchain technology can be found in the Kryptokompass Shop .

To the crypto compass magazine

No decentralized network without consensus. This is the price that decentralized protocols pay and the only prevailing consensus in the blockchain universe. The decisive arguments lie in the religious war between Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS) but on the part of the PoS followers.

Proof-of-stake networks are secured by reliable validators that are selected at random to sign new blocks. Depending on the deposited capital (stake), the chances of drawing the lucky lot increase. Carrot and stick ensure the conscientious work: If validators work properly, they not only receive the transaction fees, but also increase their reputation and thus the probability of signing additional blocks. In the case of practical jokes, however, they are punished by the algorithm and excluded from the network.

Validators are putting their stake at risk. The incentive not to cheat is correspondingly great. The focus on validators may seem to contradict the ideal of decentralization, but it is a necessary and comparatively minor evil when it comes to the security of networks. This centering also takes place in PoW networks by miners.

In contrast to energy-wasting PoW processes, miners or validators are not dependent on the purchase of expensive mining hardware. Even the bitterest PoW supporters cannot deny that PoS processes solve the blockchain trilemma of security, scalability and decentralization.

Contra Proof of Stake

Of course you can digitally recreate a plutocracy. You just mustn’t give yourself the illusion that you’re still dealing with a cryptocurrency. The mantra “dont trust, verify” is taken to absurdity by a network in which a few handfuls of nodes decide which transactions are going through and whether all account balances are correct.

The claims made by the PoS parliamentary group that they have solved the blockchain trilemma are therefore virtually false. The greater the crypto assets that you can do without for staking, the greater the chance of producing a block and getting the staking reward. This applies equally to all staking platforms.

The same applies to decisions about the further development of the underlying protocol: if you have a lot, you have a lot to say. What kind of style blooms this can be seen in the case of Steem, for example. The vote on a soft fork turned into a drama because a „hostile takeover“ of the Steemit blockchain by Tron was feared.

Tron CEO Justin Sun, with the support of the Bitcoin exchanges Binance, Huobi and Poloniex, voted against the proposal from the community that would have devalued their voting rights. It came to the hard fork. If you look at how diligently Binance, Bitfinex and Co. are already involved in staking, you don’t want to imagine the impact they will only have when a proof-of-stake network reaches mainstream adaptation.

Samy then left his suggestion to realize the bet, he tops, as long as the value is in dollar and that it is in an official way.

Samy Dana, the famous Brazilian economist known for being a Bitcoin critic, suggested that he could bet against Bitcoin’s high. After the profile Mises Capital look for someone from the financial market to bet $ 50 thousand that Bitcoin will not exceed $ 233 thousand next year, Samy suggested that the bet would be in dollar: $ 150 thousand.

„Does anybody from the financial market bet $50 thousand that Immediate Bitcoin will not exceed $233,000 next year? If it doesn’t exceed I pay, if it exceeds you pay me“, said Mises Capital profile – with 44 thousand followers – on Twitter.

Then Samy answered:

„Why don’t you bet? like 150 thousand? But let’s bet in dollar which is more amusing, the biggest BTC market is based on dollar“.

Then he explained that he could even make the bet in an official way, as long as it was of at least 50 thousand dollars.

„I’m quiet on mine, you offer a bet. If it’s BTC itself, it should be made in USD; if against the real, we can make real vs. dollar without BTC I don’t know the intention, but I think R$ 50 thousand is a very low value. I suggest at least 50 or 100 thousand dollars. I also want to do it in official form“.

Fabricio Tota, director of Bitcoin Market offered the table of the brokerage house to serve as a guarantee (escrow) and Samy asked what could be done to avoid default, that is, the loser of the bet stop paying.

Tota then answered that a suggestion would be for both of them to deposit the amount before, which the Bitcoin Market would do custody and in the future would pass on to the eventual winner.

Samy explained that in case of an eventual bet, there would not be a legal mechanism against default. So, in Samy’s opinion, if he loses, he has to pay, but if he wins, the loser disappears and doesn’t pay the amount. So it wouldn’t be interesting to make the bet in an unofficial way.

Samy then left his suggestion to make the bet, he tops, as long as the value is in dollar and it is in an official way.

„I’ve already suggested to bet in dollar both the value and the Real target price is in low, besides, I’m waiting for a broker that accepts bet in order it be done in an official way“.

The bet has not yet been made, and the value has not been defined either. Based on the price suggested by Mises Capital ($ 233 thousand), Bitcoin would have to reach $ 44 thousand next year.

Aujourd’hui est un jour un peu spécial car il marque exactement dix ans depuis la dernière activité publique de Satoshi Nakamoto.

Nous sommes en 2020 et la principale crypto-monnaie au monde, Bitcoin, se négocie à plus de 19000 dollars – une augmentation inimaginable de sa valeur en dollars depuis sa création

La CTB a été considérée comme l‘ actif le plus performant de la décennie et elle ne montre aucun signe de ralentissement, en particulier dans l’environnement actuel d’une pandémie mondiale et du potentiel d’une grave crise financière.

Fait intéressant, il y a exactement 10 ans ce jour-là, Satoshi Nakamoto, la personne (ou le groupe de personnes) qui a tout commencé, a laissé tomber le dernier message public avant de disparaître, pour ne plus jamais être revu.

Il y a 10 ans, Satoshi a fait sa dernière déclaration

Satoshi Nakamoto est le créateur pseudonyme du réseau Bitcoin. Beaucoup de gens aimeraient savoir qui pourrait être cette personne (ou ce groupe de personnes), mais à ce jour, cela reste largement inconnu.

Ce que nous savons, c’est qu’à cette date, en 2010, Satoshi a été vu pour la dernière fois actif sur le populaire forum Bitcointalk lors d’une discussion sur la résistance du réseau aux attaques DoS.

Dans tous les cas, depuis lors, le mystérieux créateur de la crypto-monnaie la plus populaire n’a jamais été vu. À ce jour, il n’y a aucune information disponible publiquement et vérifiable qui établit de manière concluante l’identité de Satoshi Nakamoto.

Néanmoins, certains ont tenté de convaincre le public qu’ils sont effectivement responsables de la création de Bitcoin. Le cas le plus infâme est celui de Craig Wright. À ce jour, cependant, il n’a pas produit de preuves légitimes confirmant ses allégations. La communauté entière est incrédule lorsqu’il s’agit de ses déclarations selon lesquelles il est Satoshi Nakamoto, et Wright est allé jusqu’à poursuivre tous ceux qui prétendent le contraire. Jusqu’à présent, cela n’a pas été en sa faveur .

Que savons-nous de Satoshi?

Il y a des faits intéressants qui pourraient ne pas être si populaires à propos de Satoshi, bien que certaines des choses les plus excitantes soient en grande partie publiques et accessibles à tous.

Nous savons avec certitude que c’était son pseudonyme utilisé en tant qu’auteur du livre blanc de Bitcoin – un document ouvrant la voie à un réseau immuable et résistant à la censure qui deviendrait plus tard un actif de plusieurs milliards de dollars que beaucoup des investisseurs les plus réputés dans le monde appellerait une alternative à l’or.

Cependant, mis à part certains aspects techniques concernant Bitcoin et l’implication de Satoshi, il n’y a pas grand-chose à faire. Du moins pas jusqu’à récemment.

Comme CryptoPotato l’a rapporté vers la fin du mois de novembre, les recherches suggèrent que les activités de Satoshi Nakamoto menées de 2008 à 2010 se sont déroulées alors qu’il était à Londres au moment de la mise en service de BTC. Malgré la «confiance raisonnable» que le rapport prétend avoir, il n’y a toujours pas la moindre idée de son identité réelle.

En tout cas, ce qui est certain, c’est qu’il nous a laissé un protocole qui a déjà laissé sa marque dans le monde de la fintech et a été le fer de lance d’une industrie, actuellement peuplée de centaines de milliers de spécialistes, travaillant sans relâche pour offrir aux gens une alternative à la centralisation systèmes.