3 ms·
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 d
by 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 agoPerhaps 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 agoMy 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.