No? I can’t see how the limited supply allows for growing economy without massively increasing the value of the early versions of it.
Yes Molly, sorry you're correct. What I should have said is there no reason why you shouldn't have a decentralised self regulating FAIT currency
Buying a packet of chewing gum in El Salvador now uses 1900kWh of electricity.
@thisisnotaspoon : Citation required. That seems astronomical / unfeasible. It also presumably relies on that bitcoin never being re-used. A bit like saying that 1p coins cost more than 1p to make*, which is RIDICULOUS. Until you consider that they each get re-used hundreds of times.
*Citation unavailable - the Royal Mint don't publish costs. BUT it apparently costs the US govt 1.66 cents to make a 1c coin.
I think there’s usefulness in being able to assign uniqueness or provenance to a digital creation and from that perspective NFTs have some validity. Subsequently and dependent on the creator, the creation, and its ownership, ‘the one’ likely has an increased value and that’s where it just becomes part of the creative market.
1780kWh per transaction (not minting, transaction)
148kwh per 100,000 Visa transactions (which makes it more like 1.2 million, the one I was using was per transaction so probably had a rounding error)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-consumption-transaction-comparison-visa/
Source for the electricity usage for a 2 bed flat.
https://www.switch-plan.co.uk/energy/consumption/average-electricity/
Thinking of NFTs purely in terms of digital art is VERY limiting - you need to think of them as events. The point of creation coupled to the item specifically is a large part of what makes NFTs valuable. That's the scarcity.
You are presenting numbers as if that is the marginal cost of each transaction, when it really isn't. If I make an extra bitcoin transaction, it doesn't result in any material increase in electricity usage whatsoever.
Thinking of NFTs purely in terms of digital art is VERY limiting – you need to think of them as events. The point of creation coupled to the item specifically is a large part of what makes NFTs valuable. That’s the scarcity.
The uniqueness of the events surroundinig the creation of an item of physical art is what makes it possible to identify an "orginal" (or an n/20 etc.). Which is central to the value of original artworks. I am not sure I see the difference, unless you are saying that the thing created doesn't have to be "art" at all. But let's not get involved in a discussion of what art is.
Thinking of NFTs purely in terms of digital art is VERY limiting
I'm just giving it as an example, but yes it can apply to loads of things.
What I should have said is there no reason why you shouldn’t have a decentralised self regulating FAIT currency
Correct but again AIUI if it's not backed by anything it is going to be intrinsically highly volatile and likely to be not much use for anything other than playing the market.
If I make an extra bitcoin transaction, it doesn’t result in any material increase in electricity usage whatsoever.
Not necessarily, chances are your transaction is going to contribute to the value of bitcoin, and the higher the value the more viable it is to throw resources at mining more. And each new coin requires MORE resources than the last one.
If I make an extra bitcoin transaction, it doesn’t result in any material increase in electricity usage whatsoever.
No, it really does. When you make a bitcoin transaction, it gets written into the blockchain, and the process that verifies each block of transactions *is* the mining process. The bitcoins that you get from mining are a reward to incentivise people to waste the stupendous amounts of power needed to verify each block.
AIUI each coin mined incorporates the record of the transactions since the last one.
So while not an incremental cost, it is a simple* x divide by y calculation to give the monumentally wasteful cost of the network per transaction. One doesn't work in isolation from the other.
*it probably isn't if you tried to forecast it because the difficulty of mining the coin in the first place is derived from a whole load of factors. But in retrospect, the calculation is valid to say the transaction cost that.
Why are you arguing about Bitcoin energy demands again? Bin dun in the How Decide Crypto thread. Plenty of blockchains using the Proof of Stake algorithm which doesn't have the same high energy demands. So mostly irrelevant to NFTs.
So mostly irrelevant to NFTs.
Bollocks, utter bollocks (and you probably know that).
Most NFT's are on etherium. 97% in fact (source: https://cointelegraph.com/news/blockchains-vie-for-nft-market-but-ethereum-still-dominates-report)
Which, while not Bitcoin. Is still 210 kWh per transaction. Or the equivalent of 6 weeks electricity for the aforementioned flat, or driving a Model 3 720miles (same source as last time, and 0.29miles per kW from the Muskmobile).
Plenty of blockchains using the Proof of Stake algorithm which doesn’t have the same high energy demands.
I'm still having flashbacks to last year and trying to buy hard drives for work whilst Chia was the next big thing. The only thing harder to get a hold of was decent plywood, but I can't blame the plywood on crypto.
I don’t think NFTs consume power, do they? Bitcoin mining does.
The vast majority of NFTs are on the Etherium blockchain, which is another Proof Of Work coin. It's the reason no-one has been able to get graphics cards for years. It uses a huge amount of electricity, but it's not as bad as BTC.
https://kylemcdonald.github.io/ethereum-emissions/
The process of creating ('minting') an NFT takes a surprising amount of energy, and then each transaction does too. But once minted, the general 'existence' of an NFT doesn't require energy, no.
(There has been talk of ETH moving to Proof Of Stake for several years. It's always been about 18 months away, and AFAIK it is still, currently, about 18 months away. PoS is much less environmentally damaging, but seems to be a kind of feudalism where the richest few get to charge the serfs for using the blockchain, so arguably still bad.)
Plenty of blockchains using the Proof of Stake algorithm which doesn’t have the same high energy demands
AFAIK this still "In theory" and while Ethereum have been "exploring" the use of POS, they haven't converted, and they said that at least 2 years ago now. So the two most popular cryptocurrencies still use as much power as Thailand does every year.
Why are you arguing about Bitcoin energy demands again?
Because it's an utter, monumental, gargantuan, epic, colloquial-word-for-reproduction-ing disaster.
And everyone involved in it, supporting it, or making money from it deserves to be informed of that, mocked for their shear tone-deafness towards climate change, or just plain told they're wrong. At ever colloquial-word-for-reproduction-ing oportunity.
Thought experiment: for each extra transaction, where does the extra processing power (=electricity consumption) come from? If I do a million transactions in a minute, where would all the extra processing power come from?
AIUI, what happens is that each transaction means more competition for the (finite) number of transactions allowed in a ten minute block, and so the processing fee 'paid' to miners increases. At the moment, the revenue from new bitcoins awarded to miners dwarfs the revenue for miners from transaction fees, hence there is no *material* increase in incentive for more processing power to be put into mining. Admittedly that might change in coming decades as the number of new bitcoins awarded to miners decreases, and transaction fees become a larger part of the revenue.
All a big scam IMHO even if the blockchain tech may have some utility.
NFTs and crypto is full of wash trading pumping up the price. It's all unregulated which never ends well. This is further reflected in the stabelcoins which are almost certainly backed by inadequate liquidity.
Doublethink is rife in crypto also. For example, crypto is said to be the future because it's decentralised, but exchanges are great because they centralise the 'secure' storage of keys and generally validate ownership like a bank. A solution for a solution!
Who NFT things strikes me as completely barking mad, its taking the huge speculative bubble which is crypto and then adding nothing of value to it, whilst hyping it to another level because a few artists are now involved.
There’s not much stopping you taking an existing image and changing it slightly (although I suppose the original artist could claim ownership of your NFT later, but really, that’s not the point. Your NFT’s value isn’t based on it’s artistic merit, not really anyway (despite what some may claim) it’s not worth anything because you’re not well known enough to make it special or unique (Social Media and economic alchemy crashing together there).
You don't even need to change it slightly - you can just use exactly the same picture! In fact, here's a site that automates the process for you. Easy.
Remember, owning an NFT isn't the same as owning the art or owning the copyright. All you own is a 'certificate' confirming that you paid £xx for something. You can sell the certificate later, but it doesn't necessarily mean you're selling the copyright.
And so you also end up with crap like this - people selling Cryptopunks that face left instead of right. Or, even better, two sets of people selling Ape pictures facing left instead of right, and then arguing about who is the REAL ape ripoff.
And of course, one look at any Cryptopunk or Bored Ape will immediately confirm that the price of an NFT is not even remotely linked to any conventional idea of 'artistic merit'.
The thought experiment is taken to a logical conclusion - in those decades to come it's still monumentally inefficient compared to the relatively simple networks that deal with conventional currency. And probably consuming even more electricity. BTC and ETH have finally moved to proof of stake and the entire network is now beholden to a handful of whales in some laises-faire / unregulated shithole (delete as appropriate for your political leanings).
So one of my colleagues at work was telling me he had an Adidas NFT and from selling and rebuying from £600 he’s currently made £8000!
Thing is he doesn’t really understand it, but has still made that money!
Is this actually possible?
Totally possible. I've been trading in old 26" MTB parts, selling and rebuying the same frames and wheelsets online. The price goes up each transaction, they were worth about £38 the first time, but the last sale was for £777.77. I just hope the other two regular bidders don't drop out before I cash out.
is not even remotely linked to any conventional idea of ‘artistic merit’.
NFT art combines the nuanced social awareness of computer programmers with the soulful whimsy of hedge fund managers. It reflects the stunted inner lives of the finance and technology professionals who produced it.
And of course, one look at any Cryptopunk or Bored Ape will immediately confirm that the price of an NFT is not even remotely linked to any conventional idea of ‘artistic merit’.
Art. Turning convention upside down since cavemen.
Artist's Shit
SUMMARY
In May 1961, while he was living in Milan, Piero Manzoni produced ninety cans of Artist's Shit. Each was numbered on the lid 001 to 090. Tate's work is number 004. A label on each can, printed in Italian, English, French and German, identified the contents as '"Artist's Shit", contents 30gr net freshly preserved, produced and tinned in May 1961.' In December 1961 Manzoni wrote in a letter to the artist Ben Vautier: 'I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.' (Letter reprinted in Battino and Palazzoli p.144.)It is not known exactly how many cans of Artist's Shit were sold within Manzoni's lifetime, but a receipt dated 23 August 1962 certifies that Manzoni sold one to Alberto Lùcia for 30 grams of 18-carat gold (reproduced in Battino and Palazzoli p.154). Manzoni's decision to value his excrement on a par with the price of gold made clear reference to the tradition of the artist as alchemist already forged by Marcel Duchamp and Yves Klein among others. As the artist and critic Jon Thompson has written:
Manzoni's critical and metaphorical reification of the artist's body, its processes and products, pointed the way towards an understanding of the persona of the artist and the product of the artist's body as a consumable object. The Merda d'artista, the artist's shit, dried naturally and canned 'with no added preservatives', was the perfect metaphor for the bodied and disembodied nature of artistic labour: the work of art as fully incorporated raw material, and its violent expulsion as commodity. Manzoni understood the creative act as part of the cycle of consumption: as a constant reprocessing, packaging, marketing, consuming, reprocessing, packaging, ad infinitum. (Piero Manzoni, 1998, p.45)
Artist's Shit was made at a time when Manzoni was producing a variety of works involving the fetishisation and commodification of his own body substances. These included marking eggs with his thumbprints before eating them, and selling balloons filled with his own breath (see Tate T07589). Of these works, the cans of Artist's Shit have become the most notorious, in part because of a lingering uncertainty about whether they do indeed contain Manzoni's faeces. At times when Manzoni's reputation has seen the market value of these works increase, such uncertainties have imbued them with an additional level of irony.
Further Reading:
Germano Celant, Piero Manzoni, New York 1972
Freddy Battino and Luca Palazzoli, Piero Manzoni: Catalogue raisonné, Milan 1991, pp.123-8, 472-5, catalogue no. 1053/4, reproduced p.472
Piero Manzoni, exhibition catalogue, Serpentine Gallery, London 1998, reproduced pp.201-6 in colourSophie Howarth
November 2000
@Toomba
How was your son managed to onboard his pounds into crypto? My son wants to do the same with his pocket money but I assume he can't get a Coinbase account due to age.
Art. Turning convention upside down since cavemen.
Bored Ape "art" is about as conventional as it's possible to get. It's the knickerless tennis player made digital.
Bored Ape “art” is about as conventional as it’s possible to get. It’s the knickerless tennis player made digital.
I fail to see how the two are comparable. One is an easily understood mass produced poster of a single photograph of a woman revealing her bottom and readily affordable to (and appreciable by one half of) the general population, the other is an algorithmically produced digital artwork unaffordable to (and probably unappreciated by most of) the general population.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Bored Apes, I don't think they're worth what is paid for them at all. They look more like something that should be collectable amongst school children. More that a lot of the aesthetic judgements against NFT artworks are not specific to NFTs at all. Being an NFT doesn't necessitate these values, it could be that the medium hasn't matured enough yet.
Piss Christ was another famous example of bodily waste (fluid?) art but put into service of iconoclasm.
Here's some NFT art with very different aesthetics to what's been discussed so far:
148kwh per 100,000 Visa transactions
Are we talking about the power required to make a simple Api request across the Internet, or does this include the power consumed by thousands of staff employed by Visa across the world, all with their own machines, spread across however many offices?
The former wouldn't be a fair comparison, because the blockchain requires none of the latter, which is one of the main appeals.
It's a valid enough discussion, but it's easy to attack crypto because the energy numbers are so easily quantifiable, whereas in a more traditional insustry they're not.
but it’s easy to attack crypto because the energy numbers are so easily quantifiable, whereas in a more traditional insustry they’re not.
Well I'm not concerned with the cost of servicing transactions, more about mining new coins. That's the bit that's always going to increase. When a central bank controls money supply, Visa's energy consumption is not affected.
whereas in a more traditional insustry they’re not.
Are you really trying to defend crypto by suggesting that folks are unaware of how much energy other industries use, seriously? You really think that every company in the world doesn't know, or isn't aware of it's quarterly utility bill?
Are we talking about the power required to make a simple Api request across the Internet, or does this include the power consumed by thousands of staff employed by Visa across the world, all with their own machines, spread across however many offices?
Seriously?
You think 20,500 employees at Visa have a significant carbon footprint compared to a cryptocurrency?
I mean TBH the hardest thing about fact-checking anything I post is the fact that it's escalating so incredibly quickly that googling the carbon footprint/energy consumption of bitcoin anything more than a month or two old is out of date.
Last time I checked it was on a par with a country of 70 million people.
So only 341,400% more than the Visa employees, even if you include them, their offices, their cars, homes, holidays, heating bills, infrastructure, and all, not just the energy to keep the lights on in the office and datacenters.
Sources, because someone will ask, and it's too late to edit:
https://www.google.com/search?q=visa+employees+how+many
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/
Incidentally, it appears it's gone up since the other figure I found earlier, It's 2282kWh per transaction, over a ton of CO2 and 285g of e-waste (source above).
Last time I checked it was on a par with a country of 70 million people.
But still less than YouTube.
You really think that every company in the world doesn’t know, or isn’t aware of it’s quarterly utility bill?
Visa is a tiny part of a global financial network. And their quarterly bill is a tiny part of their own real cost. They will rely on numerous third parties they communicate with. Then there is the production of all the physical equipment and software they and their third parties use.
Somebody pointed out above that it can cost more to create physical coins than their actual worth. That's before they are physically moved around each respective nation and stored in secure locations, all of which required an entire supply chain to produce.
I'm sure somebody has made a stab at it, but it would be difficult to put together even a very rough, simple cost of the existing financial system. Whereas the blockchain is just that. You can download the entire thing onto your home computer, every transaction ever made, and it relies on nothing but miners.
I'm not defending the technology. I'm quite open minded and genuinely curious about the answers myself. I just think it's too easy to say it uses the power of a small nation. That in itself doesn't discredit it. That in itself doesn't mean anything, it's not a useful comparison. The current financial system could be consuming the power of 10 small nations and nobody really knows.
Also, the optimistic viewpoint would be that it could one day run on entirely clean energy, because of its simplicity.
Well I’m not concerned with the cost of servicing transactions, more about mining new coins. That’s the bit that’s always going to increase. When a central bank controls money supply, Visa’s energy consumption is not affected.
I have to admit, this is not something I fully understand: how it is sustainable in the long term.
Visa is a tiny part of a global financial network. And their quarterly bill is a tiny part of their own real cost. They will rely on numerous third parties they communicate with. Then there is the production of all the physical equipment and software they and their third parties use.
You're clutching at straws here. A single bitcoin transaction generates that 285g of e-waste. That's the ASIC's being run till they die or become unprofitable.
Think just how many conventional transactions VISA are probably doing on 285g of server every second? You can figure it out actually. A typical board in a blade server has the I/O capacity for about 256 requests/second (more if they're just pings, less if it's something really complex) and weighs about 8kg.
So by 9:00:00:03, 3 hundredths of a second into its first day it's handled more requests than would have killed it doing "simple" bitcoin work.
[gross oversimplification, there will be more requests than just transactions, most request are just one server asking another what time is it so they can keep in sync, but 3 hundredths of a second Vs the entire lifetime of a piece of equipment gives an indication of how un-simple bitcoin transaction recording is]
Also, the optimistic viewpoint would be that it could one day run on entirely clean energy, because of its simplicity.
Ermmm, the entire purpose is it's CRYPTO currency, the reason it has such a monumentally huge carbon footprint.
Well I’m not concerned with the cost of servicing transactions, more about mining new coins. That’s the bit that’s always going to increase. When a central bank controls money supply, Visa’s energy consumption is not affected.
I have to admit, this is not something I fully understand: how it is sustainable in the long term.
The mining and recording of transactions are one and the same.
In unencrypted terms the "new" blockchain after a coin is minted is a list of every transaction thus far.
In very high level terms the "proof of work" part of mining is taking that plus a challenge and finding the encryption key that matches the two together. A bit like when people say it would take the CIA however many computing hours to unencrypt an iPhone, except it's just trying to unencrypt that you bought a latte.
Ermmm, the entire purpose is it’s CRYPTO currency, the reason it has such a monumentally huge carbon
I was referring to the fact that it's a self contained technology. It doesn't rely on an immeasurable number of component parts (and I still think the visa transaction thing is being over-simplified)
Anyway, I don't want to derail the thread with a done-to-death topic. Back to NFTs.
Yeah, I'm slowly getting into physical gold thanks.
I have a suspicion that these things are all the result of central banks printing free money since 2008 and crazy low interest rates. If that ever changes they will rapidly become worthless. But I could be wrong.
Too much of this horseshit going around.
The central banks don't print free money. They issue digital money under the government's instruction for society to function.(as well as other more pointless tasks.) This money is spent into existence and is the only way money is ever created in a sovereign state. Commercial banks lend money but they are netted back to zero at some point when the loan is paid back.
They've done it for decades, and it's nothing new. And it's not responsible for inflation.
You are referring to Q/E. This is not printing money either. This is an asset swap of reserves/gilts between the bond market and the BoE. It's less than perfect and it shows how messed up things are but is just an extension of monetary operations that the BoE carried out to keep bonds in check.
Crypto people are annoyed because they look to blame their ups and downs on the fed, it's all over twitter.
Just accept it's a volatile market, influenced mostly by whales shaking you out.
If anyone wants to invest in NFTs, I've got a receipt for a bridge for sale.
The current financial system could be consuming the power of 10 small nations and nobody really knows.
Maybe but that is supporting the world's economy. Bitcoin isn't, it's just a get rich scheme for early investors.
