Yesterday I shared with everyone "Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Have Reached Their Endgame" (for details, see the reference link at the end of the article).

Although I have significant disagreements with the basic views of this article, the author, as a seasoned founder of a Bitcoin mining pool, provides observations on the Bitcoin mining industry and some reflections on Bitcoin that are still worth referencing and paying attention to—because some of these factors will profoundly impact the future of the crypto ecosystem.

Today, I have excerpted some typical viewpoints from the article.

- "Bitcoin has no production capability, no consumption value, no real currency function... the analogy to gold does not hold."

I completely agree with this point.

"Bitcoin has no production capability," in my understanding means it does not generate cash flow. This is the fundamental reason why many well-known investors, such as Buffett, Munger, and Duan Yongping, do not buy Bitcoin.

However, I will not be entangled by this; this characteristic does not affect my firm holding of Bitcoin, just as I have always firmly held onto CryptoPunks.

Bitcoin "has no consumption value, no real currency function." I think I gradually began to recognize this fact a few years ago.

However, although Bitcoin is unlikely to enter our daily life on a large scale and frequently as currency, its value as a new type of "store of value" tool in special scenarios is undoubtedly unique. The role and value of Bitcoin in this regard may very well surpass that of gold—such as the recent events in the Strait of Hormuz in Iran.

"The analogy to gold does not hold," I have clearly expressed this viewpoint multiple times. I do not consider it "digital gold," but rather see it as a special type of digital collectible.

Every time I share this viewpoint, there are always readers leaving messages expressing strong and difficult-to-accept emotions.

However, when I first shared this viewpoint in an article, I thought my controversial opinion would be seen as an anomaly for quite a long time. I did not expect that now there are also seasoned Bitcoin mining pool founders openly expressing this viewpoint.

I believe that this viewpoint will one day be accepted by the public, for a simple reason: objective facts will speak for themselves; Bitcoin's performance on some key factors is not like that of gold.

- "The $150 billion in mining is not just Bitcoin. Bitcoin has accumulated about $100 billion in electricity and mining machines over fifteen years, all turning into electricity costs and scrap metal. Within the seven years of Ethereum’s POW cycle, miners' cumulative income was about $30-40 billion, with corresponding hardware and electricity investments at the same level; on the day of switching to POS in 2022, approximately $19 billion in hardware assets became worthless overnight. FIL is even more extreme—hardware, staking, and installment debts are locked in three layers; just before the mainnet launch in the Chinese market, miner sales exceeded 30 billion yuan, and FIL dropped from a peak of $237 to less than $4. Miners of other POW coins like LTC and DOGE are in similar situations, with actual holding costs far exceeding current market prices."

This passage points out a rather brutal fact: systems based on POW and similar consensus mechanisms consume vast amounts of electrical and hardware resources, and whether these consumptions can bring corresponding social benefits is worth contemplating and reflecting upon.

I shared in an article last year about the phenomenon of Bitcoin mining pools transitioning to AI data centers. At that time, I was worried about the enormous and astonishing power consumption of AI; under such circumstances, if the crypto ecosystem also joins the competition for energy consumption, it is hard to imagine what the consequences will be and what kind of negative effects it will bring to the crypto ecosystem.

As early as 2015, Vitalik insisted that Ethereum's POW must ultimately transition to POS, stating that one reason was the need to reduce Ethereum's enormous consumption of electrical and hardware resources.

In that era, there was great controversy over whether POS had centralization issues (of course, there is still considerable controversy today), so many opposed Ethereum’s transition to POS, believing it must stick to POW.

Bitcoin cannot modify its POW mechanism for well-known reasons, which is completely understandable, but for Ethereum, which is meant to support the crypto ecosystem, if it continues to maintain POW, it seems increasingly problematic now.

Although POS is still questionable (I have doubts about it as well), a comprehensive assessment suggests that under the existing technological conditions, POS may be the only solution to these contradictions.

I believe this viewpoint will soon be increasingly accepted by more people as AI develops and consumes electricity at a frantic pace.

Finally, I want to share again a viewpoint I have repeated before:

Bitcoin has created history, and I still believe in Bitcoin's future and its potential; but Ethereum is what will create the future, so I believe more in Ethereum's future.

The future of the crypto ecosystem is not in Bitcoin, but in Ethereum.

In my view, the significance of investing in Bitcoin now is not as great as investing in Ethereum.

Reference link:

https://wublock123.com/articles/yang-haipo-bitcoin-crypto-endgame-58829

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。