4 ms·

The realization of that sort of idealism is so far fetched it doesn't change the argument. Sure, you could possibly get the USA to create laws to stop externali

The realization of that sort of idealism is so far fetched it doesn't change the argument. Sure, you could possibly get the USA to create laws to stop externalizing the costs of co2 production, but everyone, everywhere? Including the most corrupt, war torn, and penniless places in the world? And what about the deep state? They once sold cocaine to us citizens in order to raise money for black ops. Would they think twice about mining PoW?

cabalamat 8y ago
> Sure, you could possibly get the USA to create laws to stop externalizing the costs of co2 production, but everyone, everywhere? If you got 2 out of (USA,EU,PRC) to do it, and those countries all put big import tariffs and other sanctions on other countries that didn't, that would switch over the world economy to lowering CO2 emissions. > Including the most corrupt, war torn, and penniless places in the world? Corrupt and war-torn places still interact with the global economy. Penniless places aren't going to have enough of an economy to emit much CO2. > And what about the deep state? [...] Would they think twice about mining PoW? If there is a worldwide effort to shut down PoW cryptocurrencies, they will become useless and the deep state won't be able to achieve anything with them that it couldn't do more easily by other means.
- topmonk 8y ago
  I can see your argument up to this point: > If there is a worldwide effort to shut down PoW cryptocurrencies, they will become useless and the deep state won't be able to achieve anything with them that it couldn't do more easily by other means. The whole discussion is about whether PoS is equivalent to PoW in terms of environmental harm, and I'm arguing that PoW is more costly. I don't understand what your general point is. Do you think PoW is more harmful than PoS or not? The parent was saying that it's an externalization problem. I don't think it's realistic to think that the damage to the environment could be charged back to the miner in every case, therefore PoW would always be more dirty than PoS. Could you clarify what your main point is in light of this?
  - keymone 8y ago
    > The whole discussion is about whether PoS is equivalent to PoW in terms of environmental harm it's wrong question anyway because it implies PoW necessarily causes environmental harm. PoW is consumption of energy, just like vast majority of other human activities. consumption of energy is not what harms the environment, at least not as directly as production of energy. the two are only closely related because of unwillingness of political elites to punish harmful producers, because those producers are the political elites or are closely related to them.
    - EGreg 8y ago
      This is not strictly true. That’s like saying that in the US where factory farms are the norm, a new game causing people to buy as much veal as they can and throw it in the garbage has absolutely no responsibility for how many calves are raised in terrible conditions, because they COULD have been raised in good conditions, regardless of how many there are. The fact is that human production capacity for energy is finite. The more pressure you put on this production capacity, the more it will cause companies to pop up and produce more energy. AS LONG AS the proportion of FOSSIL FUEL sources among these new companies will be high, you are indirectly contributing, via induced demand, towards more CO2 pollution. Yes if the world had moved to 99% sustainable energy then Bitcoin and Ethereum would not be contributing to the CO2 pollution problem in a meaningful way. But the current disitribution of energy production is relevant in assigning responsibility. Just as if we all moved to fake lab grown veal, then maybe the game of throwing veal in the trash would not be harming animals in any meaningful way.
      - keymone 8y ago
        Nothing is strictly true except truisms, but I still disagree. Unless bitcoin consensus rules necessitated energy source that is harmful for environment, it is not fair to blame energy consumer for environment impact. Energy producer is the villain and spineless politicians that won’t enforce punishment for harmful energy sources.
        8y ago

cabalamat 8y ago

> Sure, you could possibly get the USA to create laws to stop externalizing the costs of co2 production, but everyone, everywhere? If you got 2 out of (USA,EU,PRC) to do it, and those countries all put big import tariffs and other sanctions on other countries that didn't, that would switch over the world economy to lowering CO2 emissions. > Including the most corrupt, war torn, and penniless places in the world? Corrupt and war-torn places still interact with the global economy. Penniless places aren't going to have enough of an economy to emit much CO2. > And what about the deep state? [...] Would they think twice about mining PoW? If there is a worldwide effort to shut down PoW cryptocurrencies, they will become useless and the deep state won't be able to achieve anything with them that it couldn't do more easily by other means.

topmonk 8y ago
I can see your argument up to this point: > If there is a worldwide effort to shut down PoW cryptocurrencies, they will become useless and the deep state won't be able to achieve anything with them that it couldn't do more easily by other means. The whole discussion is about whether PoS is equivalent to PoW in terms of environmental harm, and I'm arguing that PoW is more costly. I don't understand what your general point is. Do you think PoW is more harmful than PoS or not? The parent was saying that it's an externalization problem. I don't think it's realistic to think that the damage to the environment could be charged back to the miner in every case, therefore PoW would always be more dirty than PoS. Could you clarify what your main point is in light of this?
- keymone 8y ago
  > The whole discussion is about whether PoS is equivalent to PoW in terms of environmental harm it's wrong question anyway because it implies PoW necessarily causes environmental harm. PoW is consumption of energy, just like vast majority of other human activities. consumption of energy is not what harms the environment, at least not as directly as production of energy. the two are only closely related because of unwillingness of political elites to punish harmful producers, because those producers are the political elites or are closely related to them.
  - EGreg 8y ago
    This is not strictly true. That’s like saying that in the US where factory farms are the norm, a new game causing people to buy as much veal as they can and throw it in the garbage has absolutely no responsibility for how many calves are raised in terrible conditions, because they COULD have been raised in good conditions, regardless of how many there are. The fact is that human production capacity for energy is finite. The more pressure you put on this production capacity, the more it will cause companies to pop up and produce more energy. AS LONG AS the proportion of FOSSIL FUEL sources among these new companies will be high, you are indirectly contributing, via induced demand, towards more CO2 pollution. Yes if the world had moved to 99% sustainable energy then Bitcoin and Ethereum would not be contributing to the CO2 pollution problem in a meaningful way. But the current disitribution of energy production is relevant in assigning responsibility. Just as if we all moved to fake lab grown veal, then maybe the game of throwing veal in the trash would not be harming animals in any meaningful way.
    - keymone 8y ago
      Nothing is strictly true except truisms, but I still disagree. Unless bitcoin consensus rules necessitated energy source that is harmful for environment, it is not fair to blame energy consumer for environment impact. Energy producer is the villain and spineless politicians that won’t enforce punishment for harmful energy sources.
      - 8y ago