5 ms·

You think energy should be taxed more and cost more because of Bitcoin’s value? Am I reducing that argument correctly?

kaffeemitsahne 9y ago
Either the negative externalities of energy consumption are included in the energy price, or they aren't. Bitcoin is just bringing this point to light.
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  So, that’s a yes, then? Coming from Bitcoin, the harbinger of free marketry, her proponents calling for additional taxes to be levied upon energy to help unfree a market is a bit odd. “We made this thing which consumes about as much energy as Serbia on an international scale, and is very likely in the running for the most expensive computation on the planet. It’s designed incredibly inefficiently to brute force through SHA2 in 30MW+ space heaters around the world because we believe centralization is Evil, but now that what it makes is valuable, we can deflect criticism of its energy consumption to the pricing of the electricity markets. Raise the price of energy to stop us. What’s that? A lot of people already can’t afford electricity?” It’s OK to admit Bitcoin is inefficient.
  - crazygringo 9y ago
    You're setting up a complete straw man. Believing in benefits of an international, decentralized currency in no way implies you're against taxation or higher taxes. Free markets don't exist in a vacuum. Taxes pay for all the institutions that enable free markets -- including but not limited to law, enforcement of contracts, and especially (hopefully) the proper accounting of externalities.
tree_of_item 9y ago
No, not because of Bitcoin's value.
eat_veggies 9y ago
Here's the econ 101 supply/demand graph of GP's argument: https://i.imgur.com/jhQi1yK.png https://i.imgur.com/jhQi1yK.png Right now, the miners have an incentive to mine more than is socially optimal because the impact on the environment (the externality) doesn't affect their profits. If you add a tax such that the cost to mine bitcoins matches the cost to society, the market will restructure itself to produce the socially optimal amount.

Either the negative externalities of energy consumption are included in the energy price, or they aren't. Bitcoin is just bringing this point to light.

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
So, that’s a yes, then? Coming from Bitcoin, the harbinger of free marketry, her proponents calling for additional taxes to be levied upon energy to help unfree a market is a bit odd. “We made this thing which consumes about as much energy as Serbia on an international scale, and is very likely in the running for the most expensive computation on the planet. It’s designed incredibly inefficiently to brute force through SHA2 in 30MW+ space heaters around the world because we believe centralization is Evil, but now that what it makes is valuable, we can deflect criticism of its energy consumption to the pricing of the electricity markets. Raise the price of energy to stop us. What’s that? A lot of people already can’t afford electricity?” It’s OK to admit Bitcoin is inefficient.
- crazygringo 9y ago
  You're setting up a complete straw man. Believing in benefits of an international, decentralized currency in no way implies you're against taxation or higher taxes. Free markets don't exist in a vacuum. Taxes pay for all the institutions that enable free markets -- including but not limited to law, enforcement of contracts, and especially (hopefully) the proper accounting of externalities.

tree_of_item 9y ago

No, not because of Bitcoin's value.

eat_veggies 9y ago

Here's the econ 101 supply/demand graph of GP's argument: https://i.imgur.com/jhQi1yK.png https://i.imgur.com/jhQi1yK.png Right now, the miners have an incentive to mine more than is socially optimal because the impact on the environment (the externality) doesn't affect their profits. If you add a tax such that the cost to mine bitcoins matches the cost to society, the market will restructure itself to produce the socially optimal amount.