4 ms·

> An enormous amount of energy used to support a tiny minority of people participating in a highly-manipulated wealth redistribution mechanism is, objectively,

by baddox 8y ago

> An enormous amount of energy used to support a tiny minority of people participating in a highly-manipulated wealth redistribution mechanism is, objectively, a complete fucking waste. Objectively? No, I'm pretty sure that isn't "a complete fucking waste" to the people who are benefitting from it. Which is literally the definition of "subjective." Removing externalities of electricity pricing solves this. That's the point. If a kilowatt of electricity usage costs enough to offset its environmental impact, then who cares if a tiny minority of people are doing some wacky confusing things with their computers?

orthecreedence 8y ago
> If a kilowatt of electricity usage costs enough to offset its environmental impact The day that markets actually price externalities into the costs of goods and services, whether by benevolent owners or force of regulation, I'll gladly declare Bitcoin useful.
- baddox 8y ago
  The point is that the environmental argument is completely irrelevant if externalities are removed, which they absolutely should be. It doesn’t make sense to make the environmental argument for things that you consider wasteful, but not for other things that other people may consider wasteful.
  - orthecreedence 8y ago
    > The point is that the environmental argument is completely irrelevant if externalities are removed, which they absolutely should be. Yes, I agree that my argument would be completely irrelevant if only something that will never happen happens. Until then, I'd rather see some form of distributed currency that doesn't rely on pissing finite resources away to function. I get where you're coming from, but our planet is at a critical point right now objectively. Pouring pollutants into the atmosphere so people can play with FunBux is an incredibly stupid use of resources. Yes, markets should price in externalities. That would solve SO MUCH MORE than just bitcoin's energy usage. But unfortunately that concept is at odds with market capitalism, and as such, I believe my critique of bitcoin stands. Markets are not rational, prices are not accurate, bitcoin is a polluting waste of energy.
    - nostrademons 8y ago
      "Yes, I agree that my argument would be completely irrelevant if only something that will never happen happens." The same could be said for people changing their behavior because you complain about it on a message board that the people in question don't even read. Nobody's going to stop using Bitcoin because you don't like it, so why bother? That said, I think the cryptocurrency world is moving in that direction anyway. Most of the more exciting new cryptocurrencies use non-PoW consensus mechanisms, eg. IOTA = tangle, Ethereum Casper = PoS, EOS = DPoS, Stellar = SCP. And there's a strong economic incentive for that: when you reduce the cost of computation, you can use those computations for more applications, which drives adoption, which increases the value of peoples' cryptocurrencies. The challenge is that the fundamental benefit cryptocurrencies offer is computational trust, so until people are confident that these other consensus mechanisms are at least as immune to attack as PoW is, they're unlikely to switch away from Bitcoin.
      - orthecreedence 8y ago
        > Nobody's going to stop using Bitcoin because you don't like it, so why bother? Perhaps someone who did actually read what I wrote will realize that there are many, many things that do what Bitcoin does without the power usage of Bitcoin and perhaps seeks those as an alternative (like, PoS coins). And originally, the argument was "this is an environmental crisis," someone said "no it's not because of ferraris and backpacks," and I countered and said, yes, it's an issue. Why does anyone argue on an internet forum? I guess in the hopes of changing minds. I hope you would not find debate a waste of energy, at least not in a democratic form of governance. > until people are confident that these other consensus mechanisms are at least as immune to attack as PoW is, they're unlikely to switch away from Bitcoin. Yeah, that's the real meat of the argument, I suppose. We know PoW is at least difficult to attack. I am very happy that other consensus mechanisms are being explored though. I'm also not convinced existing non-PoW consensus mechanisms won't be as secure trust-wise as PoW. I guess the overall point of this is that, yes, there's nothing I can do about people doing horribly wasteful things. But let's not pretend that bitcoin isn't horribly wasteful. Let's call a giraffe a giraffe. And maybe it's ok to be a giraffe if you're aware of the trade-offs, but it's certainly not a gazelle just because you're uncomfortable with the properties of giraffes.
- hndamien 8y ago
  That is the point you should declare Governments useful. Bitcoin is already useful.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  This seems like a completely arbitrary and absolutely biased place to draw a line. Why Bitcoin and not luxury cars or Hello Kitty backpacks? How about we shut down Six Flags and Disneyland? This sounds very much like you've decided that you don't like Bitcoin (and that's fine, with good reasons) but you have rationalized it with an argument that is almost certainly inconsistent with the rest of your worldview. Bitcoin isn't any more bullshit than countless other systems/goods, the argument based on environmental externalities is a very weird reason to draw such an absolutist line given all the other (arguably) bullshit systems that incur the same costs.
  - adrianN 8y ago
    Perhaps orthecreedence would also support shutting down all kinds of other useless services. I know I would, but since we're commenting on an article about cryptocoins, the discussion about Bitcoin is more relevant than a discussion about luxury cars.
    - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
      My real point is that there is no such thing as a "useless" service. It is a completely subjective distinction. At what point do cars become "too luxurious"? Either we have a fully managed economy (which I'm pretty sure the historical consensus is clear on) or it has to be guided by attaching costs to externalities. All this is doing is just picking on Bitcoin because people don't like it. There is no principled economic or environmental argument here, just a biased rationalization applied inconsistently.
Walf 8y ago
>Objectively? No, I'm pretty sure that isn't "a complete fucking waste" to the people who are benefitting from it. Which is literally the definition of "subjective." You just proved their point. The beneficiaries of Bitcoin – like you – have a subjective viewpoint. You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders (the relatively few people who hold Bitcoin and actually profit from it). Objectively, it's largely a method to siphon real wealth from many to few, bearing a striking resemblance to Tulip Mania. That doesn't mean that all crypto and blockchain tech is somehow inherently evil, it's just not doing a lot of public good in this particular incarnation. One can argue it does the opposite by facilitating criminal enterprise. Your point about externalities is correct but moot, as no one is successfully passing on the full cost of electricity production to the consumer.
- baddox 8y ago
  > You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders That's a different claim, and I agree with it. In fact, the entire point of my comments in this thread is that I want environmental regulations that internalize all the costs of energy usage.

by baddox 8y ago

orthecreedence 8y ago

> If a kilowatt of electricity usage costs enough to offset its environmental impact The day that markets actually price externalities into the costs of goods and services, whether by benevolent owners or force of regulation, I'll gladly declare Bitcoin useful.

baddox 8y ago
The point is that the environmental argument is completely irrelevant if externalities are removed, which they absolutely should be. It doesn’t make sense to make the environmental argument for things that you consider wasteful, but not for other things that other people may consider wasteful.
- orthecreedence 8y ago
  > The point is that the environmental argument is completely irrelevant if externalities are removed, which they absolutely should be. Yes, I agree that my argument would be completely irrelevant if only something that will never happen happens. Until then, I'd rather see some form of distributed currency that doesn't rely on pissing finite resources away to function. I get where you're coming from, but our planet is at a critical point right now objectively. Pouring pollutants into the atmosphere so people can play with FunBux is an incredibly stupid use of resources. Yes, markets should price in externalities. That would solve SO MUCH MORE than just bitcoin's energy usage. But unfortunately that concept is at odds with market capitalism, and as such, I believe my critique of bitcoin stands. Markets are not rational, prices are not accurate, bitcoin is a polluting waste of energy.
  - nostrademons 8y ago
    "Yes, I agree that my argument would be completely irrelevant if only something that will never happen happens." The same could be said for people changing their behavior because you complain about it on a message board that the people in question don't even read. Nobody's going to stop using Bitcoin because you don't like it, so why bother? That said, I think the cryptocurrency world is moving in that direction anyway. Most of the more exciting new cryptocurrencies use non-PoW consensus mechanisms, eg. IOTA = tangle, Ethereum Casper = PoS, EOS = DPoS, Stellar = SCP. And there's a strong economic incentive for that: when you reduce the cost of computation, you can use those computations for more applications, which drives adoption, which increases the value of peoples' cryptocurrencies. The challenge is that the fundamental benefit cryptocurrencies offer is computational trust, so until people are confident that these other consensus mechanisms are at least as immune to attack as PoW is, they're unlikely to switch away from Bitcoin.
    - orthecreedence 8y ago
      > Nobody's going to stop using Bitcoin because you don't like it, so why bother? Perhaps someone who did actually read what I wrote will realize that there are many, many things that do what Bitcoin does without the power usage of Bitcoin and perhaps seeks those as an alternative (like, PoS coins). And originally, the argument was "this is an environmental crisis," someone said "no it's not because of ferraris and backpacks," and I countered and said, yes, it's an issue. Why does anyone argue on an internet forum? I guess in the hopes of changing minds. I hope you would not find debate a waste of energy, at least not in a democratic form of governance. > until people are confident that these other consensus mechanisms are at least as immune to attack as PoW is, they're unlikely to switch away from Bitcoin. Yeah, that's the real meat of the argument, I suppose. We know PoW is at least difficult to attack. I am very happy that other consensus mechanisms are being explored though. I'm also not convinced existing non-PoW consensus mechanisms won't be as secure trust-wise as PoW. I guess the overall point of this is that, yes, there's nothing I can do about people doing horribly wasteful things. But let's not pretend that bitcoin isn't horribly wasteful. Let's call a giraffe a giraffe. And maybe it's ok to be a giraffe if you're aware of the trade-offs, but it's certainly not a gazelle just because you're uncomfortable with the properties of giraffes.
hndamien 8y ago
That is the point you should declare Governments useful. Bitcoin is already useful.
BookmarkSaver 8y ago
This seems like a completely arbitrary and absolutely biased place to draw a line. Why Bitcoin and not luxury cars or Hello Kitty backpacks? How about we shut down Six Flags and Disneyland? This sounds very much like you've decided that you don't like Bitcoin (and that's fine, with good reasons) but you have rationalized it with an argument that is almost certainly inconsistent with the rest of your worldview. Bitcoin isn't any more bullshit than countless other systems/goods, the argument based on environmental externalities is a very weird reason to draw such an absolutist line given all the other (arguably) bullshit systems that incur the same costs.
- adrianN 8y ago
  Perhaps orthecreedence would also support shutting down all kinds of other useless services. I know I would, but since we're commenting on an article about cryptocoins, the discussion about Bitcoin is more relevant than a discussion about luxury cars.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    My real point is that there is no such thing as a "useless" service. It is a completely subjective distinction. At what point do cars become "too luxurious"? Either we have a fully managed economy (which I'm pretty sure the historical consensus is clear on) or it has to be guided by attaching costs to externalities. All this is doing is just picking on Bitcoin because people don't like it. There is no principled economic or environmental argument here, just a biased rationalization applied inconsistently.

Walf 8y ago

>Objectively? No, I'm pretty sure that isn't "a complete fucking waste" to the people who are benefitting from it. Which is literally the definition of "subjective." You just proved their point. The beneficiaries of Bitcoin – like you – have a subjective viewpoint. You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders (the relatively few people who hold Bitcoin and actually profit from it). Objectively, it's largely a method to siphon real wealth from many to few, bearing a striking resemblance to Tulip Mania. That doesn't mean that all crypto and blockchain tech is somehow inherently evil, it's just not doing a lot of public good in this particular incarnation. One can argue it does the opposite by facilitating criminal enterprise. Your point about externalities is correct but moot, as no one is successfully passing on the full cost of electricity production to the consumer.

baddox 8y ago
> You are few, and, objectively the cost to the stakeholders (inhabitants of Earth) is disproportionate to the benefit to the shareholders That's a different claim, and I agree with it. In fact, the entire point of my comments in this thread is that I want environmental regulations that internalize all the costs of energy usage.