5 ms·

Sort of. It does create an opportunity cost, in diverting electricity away from other, arguably more useful causes. The whole matter there is complicated by eco

Sort of. It does create an opportunity cost, in diverting electricity away from other, arguably more useful causes. The whole matter there is complicated by economies of scale and baseload demand etc though. It could also be seen in terms of finiteness of the source of energy.

hndamien 8y ago
The measure of usefulness is determined by how much money people are willing to allocate towards it. Given that the money is allocated there, it indicates that for those actors, they see some utility regardless of what other people think. Hence, the only way to modify the unwanted behaviour is to correctly account for those producing the externalities, such that this market signal reverberates all the way through the economic chain.
- Arbalest 8y ago
  I agree with all of that except the definition of usefulness. As you eluded to with your use of regardless, rationality is not assured. It is expected (or more likely, hope) usefulness, aka speculation. Even funding the status quo is still speculation, because something could suddenly become not useful in the future. I suppose only time will tell what was actually useful, and I'm betting bitcoin is not among them. Maybe if proof of stake comes along, I'll consider that as more potentially useful.
  - hndamien 8y ago
    Obviously capital allocation of individuals is not a perfect measure of utility, but it is the best/ fairest metric we have. Conveniently it provides a clear mechanism to sort out this mess. Price carbon pollution at the source and see the rest of the actors seeking profit fall in line. Miners will chose green energy, green energy will get more demand, their economies of scale will increase, pollution will decrease. Bitcoin energy use is no longer a problem and can provide whatever utility it is valued at without externalities.
    - Arbalest 8y ago
      If you had a mechanism to price externalities, and it wasn't government, then sure ok. But while we have no effective externality accounting and enforcement, this notion of wastage still exists fairly. If we could price in externalities with a government, then perhaps they would be more worthy of trust for currency too? In terms of my original statement, I was effectively stating that the problem of decentralising currency doesn't really give back power to the people, because of the nature of wealth accumulation and propagation. Sure, it reduces the capacity for regulatory capture, but people with capital in whatever form still exercise a capacity to better maintain their capital base. With regards to waste again, it becomes a moral issue. If we know that our externalities will cause problems, then by letting people continue to capitalise on them, we knowingly undermine the wider system we operate in. We have ethics committees for science and medical experiments, but when it comes to finance, experimentation occurs unimpeded. This leads to socio-economic outcomes which, while not fully understood, are also not complete unknowns.
      - hndamien 8y ago
        It does not follow that if we can trust a Government to price carbon emissions then we should be able to trust them to not print money. We are basically guaranteed that they will, despite being able to effective disincentive things like smoking with an excise tax. It is trivial for Governments to implement a carbon tax which would improve environmental conditions for all energy intensive production. With regards to giving power to people, this is not done through wealth redistribution (although you get a little bit of that). The mechanism is tgrough the constraint that the currency can not be debased. A rising tide lifts all boats, especially when there are not holes in them.
        Arbalest 8y ago
        Built in deflation you say? That once again, favours the incumbents. Those starting out will be at a disadvantage even more than they are now, for not having held any tokens of value. It also means that anyone who does attempt to do anything which requires money up front, whether that be starting a business, or starting a family, are at an even greater disadvantage. A rising tide lifts all boats, unless the boats haven't been built yet. Then it just becomes very difficult as more and more of the land is covered by the ever increasing tide.
- joosters 8y ago
  By that flawed reasoning, BitConnect must have been extremely useful...
  - hndamien 8y ago
    I imagine it was for a few. Now not so much, and not taking any energy.

hndamien 8y ago

The measure of usefulness is determined by how much money people are willing to allocate towards it. Given that the money is allocated there, it indicates that for those actors, they see some utility regardless of what other people think. Hence, the only way to modify the unwanted behaviour is to correctly account for those producing the externalities, such that this market signal reverberates all the way through the economic chain.

Arbalest 8y ago
I agree with all of that except the definition of usefulness. As you eluded to with your use of regardless, rationality is not assured. It is expected (or more likely, hope) usefulness, aka speculation. Even funding the status quo is still speculation, because something could suddenly become not useful in the future. I suppose only time will tell what was actually useful, and I'm betting bitcoin is not among them. Maybe if proof of stake comes along, I'll consider that as more potentially useful.
- hndamien 8y ago
  Obviously capital allocation of individuals is not a perfect measure of utility, but it is the best/ fairest metric we have. Conveniently it provides a clear mechanism to sort out this mess. Price carbon pollution at the source and see the rest of the actors seeking profit fall in line. Miners will chose green energy, green energy will get more demand, their economies of scale will increase, pollution will decrease. Bitcoin energy use is no longer a problem and can provide whatever utility it is valued at without externalities.
  - Arbalest 8y ago
    If you had a mechanism to price externalities, and it wasn't government, then sure ok. But while we have no effective externality accounting and enforcement, this notion of wastage still exists fairly. If we could price in externalities with a government, then perhaps they would be more worthy of trust for currency too? In terms of my original statement, I was effectively stating that the problem of decentralising currency doesn't really give back power to the people, because of the nature of wealth accumulation and propagation. Sure, it reduces the capacity for regulatory capture, but people with capital in whatever form still exercise a capacity to better maintain their capital base. With regards to waste again, it becomes a moral issue. If we know that our externalities will cause problems, then by letting people continue to capitalise on them, we knowingly undermine the wider system we operate in. We have ethics committees for science and medical experiments, but when it comes to finance, experimentation occurs unimpeded. This leads to socio-economic outcomes which, while not fully understood, are also not complete unknowns.
    - hndamien 8y ago
      It does not follow that if we can trust a Government to price carbon emissions then we should be able to trust them to not print money. We are basically guaranteed that they will, despite being able to effective disincentive things like smoking with an excise tax. It is trivial for Governments to implement a carbon tax which would improve environmental conditions for all energy intensive production. With regards to giving power to people, this is not done through wealth redistribution (although you get a little bit of that). The mechanism is tgrough the constraint that the currency can not be debased. A rising tide lifts all boats, especially when there are not holes in them.
      - Arbalest 8y ago
        Built in deflation you say? That once again, favours the incumbents. Those starting out will be at a disadvantage even more than they are now, for not having held any tokens of value. It also means that anyone who does attempt to do anything which requires money up front, whether that be starting a business, or starting a family, are at an even greater disadvantage. A rising tide lifts all boats, unless the boats haven't been built yet. Then it just becomes very difficult as more and more of the land is covered by the ever increasing tide.
joosters 8y ago
By that flawed reasoning, BitConnect must have been extremely useful...
- hndamien 8y ago
  I imagine it was for a few. Now not so much, and not taking any energy.