3 ms·

I don’t think anyone disagrees that reducing the energy requirements of cryptocurrency without any capability loss would be great. The trouble is when people wh

by baddox 8y ago

I don’t think anyone disagrees that reducing the energy requirements of cryptocurrency without any capability loss would be great. The trouble is when people who don’t like cryptocurrency for other reasons, or just don’t care about it, focus specifically on complaining about its energy usage. Say you don’t care much about professional sports. Of course you would think that any innovation that reduces the energy requirements of professional would be great (more efficient arena lights, climate control, etc.). But I think it would be inappropriate to single out sports as a waste of energy, because it is only a “waste” because you don’t happen to receive and of the benefits.

orthecreedence 8y ago
Yeah, this makes sense. I guess the issue I have is such a tiny minority of people are using such an excess of energy to do something that adds very little value to society. Even if the value of bitcoin is subjective, there's still a tiny minority of people consuming vast amounts of energy to derive what value it does bring them. It just feel disproportionately harmful at a time when our top scientists are blue in the face from telling us to reduce carbon emissions. I understand that it's not my place to judge what people derive value from. I also would argue that energy should be neutral (similar to my views on internet access). I guess my biggest gripe is probably something you and me share in common: the understanding that market mechanisms allowed this waste to happen in the first place. So you're definitely not wrong, and your argument about externalities is well-taken.
- baddox 8y ago
  I’d rather not have environmental regulation that needs to decide the value to society of every activity. If the regulation just internalizes the costs of energy production, then I don’t care what you use your electricity for (up to some obvious and less-obvious limits, which can be and are handled by completely separate laws).
b1daly 8y ago
Damn bro, you are missing the point. As has been described, pure market mechanisms do not and cannot price externalities correctly. That’s why we have environmental regulation, as imperfect as it is. This implicitly means a society does make choices about how energy is used. Therefore, a discussion about societal priorities amongst individuals is essential. Likewise with regulation related to finance and money. Energy and money. Among the most highly regulated things in all societies. I agree with the poster that POW cryptocoin systems are a shocking waste of electricity. In addition, the only use cases that have proved viable are illegal or highly destructive to the social fabric. When you look at the sheer amount of money transferred from losers to winners, it’s clear that this is not a benefit to anyone. The scams, the hacks, the thefts. Bitcoin and it’s ilk are parasitic systems that weaken the host. To compare to Ferraris, well Ferraris are a niche product, are already regulated, and have a historical component that accounts for their hedonic properties. To compare bitcoin to hello kitty backpacks is just a category error, which belies that the argument is disengenuous.
- baddox 8y ago
  Perhaps you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m not against environmental regulations and I don’t expect market mechanisms to eliminate externalities. On the contrary, I want environmental regulations that reduce (ideally eliminate) externalities in the cost of energy. This should, almost by definition, be the goal of environmental regulations. Cap and trade on energy producers, for instance, can and probably does do this. As for the stuff about cryptocurrencies being associated with scams and wealth inequality, to me that’s entirely independent of environmental impact and should be dealt with (and probably can be dealt with using existing laws) regardless of the environmental impact.

by baddox 8y ago

orthecreedence 8y ago

Yeah, this makes sense. I guess the issue I have is such a tiny minority of people are using such an excess of energy to do something that adds very little value to society. Even if the value of bitcoin is subjective, there's still a tiny minority of people consuming vast amounts of energy to derive what value it does bring them. It just feel disproportionately harmful at a time when our top scientists are blue in the face from telling us to reduce carbon emissions. I understand that it's not my place to judge what people derive value from. I also would argue that energy should be neutral (similar to my views on internet access). I guess my biggest gripe is probably something you and me share in common: the understanding that market mechanisms allowed this waste to happen in the first place. So you're definitely not wrong, and your argument about externalities is well-taken.

baddox 8y ago
I’d rather not have environmental regulation that needs to decide the value to society of every activity. If the regulation just internalizes the costs of energy production, then I don’t care what you use your electricity for (up to some obvious and less-obvious limits, which can be and are handled by completely separate laws).

b1daly 8y ago

Damn bro, you are missing the point. As has been described, pure market mechanisms do not and cannot price externalities correctly. That’s why we have environmental regulation, as imperfect as it is. This implicitly means a society does make choices about how energy is used. Therefore, a discussion about societal priorities amongst individuals is essential. Likewise with regulation related to finance and money. Energy and money. Among the most highly regulated things in all societies. I agree with the poster that POW cryptocoin systems are a shocking waste of electricity. In addition, the only use cases that have proved viable are illegal or highly destructive to the social fabric. When you look at the sheer amount of money transferred from losers to winners, it’s clear that this is not a benefit to anyone. The scams, the hacks, the thefts. Bitcoin and it’s ilk are parasitic systems that weaken the host. To compare to Ferraris, well Ferraris are a niche product, are already regulated, and have a historical component that accounts for their hedonic properties. To compare bitcoin to hello kitty backpacks is just a category error, which belies that the argument is disengenuous.

baddox 8y ago
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding my point. I’m not against environmental regulations and I don’t expect market mechanisms to eliminate externalities. On the contrary, I want environmental regulations that reduce (ideally eliminate) externalities in the cost of energy. This should, almost by definition, be the goal of environmental regulations. Cap and trade on energy producers, for instance, can and probably does do this. As for the stuff about cryptocurrencies being associated with scams and wealth inequality, to me that’s entirely independent of environmental impact and should be dealt with (and probably can be dealt with using existing laws) regardless of the environmental impact.