28 ms·

I don't understand this "unproductive activity" sentiment at all. It's as if we're taking away compute from "productive" processes that are in a dire need of co

I don't understand this "unproductive activity" sentiment at all. It's as if we're taking away compute from "productive" processes that are in a dire need of compute! If there are productive processes that desperately need compute, there is absolutely nothing stopping them from getting it. I can argue that every form of money is fictional, it's only in the minds of people, it's a social construct. In fact, I can go further and say that there is absolutely nothing "physical" in this world, what is physical? just some sensations you're perceiving in your brain? Your brain is making up all the meaning. There's another (weak) argument: somehow, building all that crazy tech and going to the moon is more important than taking care of humans who're suffering here on Earth. Why is going to the moon more productive?? who benefited from it? I suspect this is just an intellectual circle jerk.

DenisM 7y ago
> It's as if we're taking away compute from "productive" processes that are in a dire need of compute! Compute? No. Energy? Yes, because today energy comes at the expense of environment which is running thin on the ground. > I suspect this is just an intellectual circle jerk. Come on, was that really necessary?
- hombre_fatal 7y ago
  Just seems like a weird hill to die on that's convenient because HN doesn't like bitcoin and gets to grandstand on saving the environment. Someone just as judgemental could criticize HNers for all the energy they waste using high powered devices to sit on HN. Or air conditioning their entire house when they could simply sweat a little bit or use a fan in the one room they are in. Or driving to the movies when they could twiddle their thumbs at home for entertainment. This is why it seems like such a belabored circlejerk.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    But is it a minor waste of energy, like a lot of things people worry about? A $100 bill costs around 10 cents to print. The value of bitcoin is defined by the cost of the energy dissipated to mine it, so that means it's a thousand times more expensive than conventional money. Do you disagree with that logic?
    - fredfoobar 7y ago
      This is another one of my pet peeves. So, you think a dollar bill is printed and that's it, there's no ecosystem around it to secure and manage the logistics around our current banking system. Sit down and think for a bit before typing out shallow comments like that.
      - perl4ever 7y ago
        One of my pet peeves is when people point out something is not particularly precise and then wave their hands and declare that makes up for three orders of magnitude difference. Of course there is an ecosystem around regular money. There's no way it costs 1,000 times as much per dollar as printing the money, and, the major, universal complaint about bitcoin has been that it doesn't provide an alternative to all of the additional functions of the conventional banking system, so your point seems doubly void to me.
        fredfoobar 7y ago
        what "additional functions" are you referring to? I haven't set foot in a bank in a decade, I need someone to refresh my memory. How can you consider my point "void" if it does provide some of the functions? I can't understand how you can acknowledge the "ecosystem around regular money" and ignore it in the very next sentence and resort to your narrative of "1000 times the cost of printing a dollar", lol! And you complain about hand-waving? italicizing "doesn't" isn't really a way to convince someone about what's missing.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If a pair of roller skates provides some of the functions of a car, is that a justification for it costing 1,000 times as much as a car? I'm not saying "oh, this is idiotic" because when something seems extremely dumb, often it's just because of some missing context. But you'll have to explain more if I'm going to understand. And I don't understand what you don't understand about the factor of a thousand difference. Do you think that less than $100 in energy is dissipated in order to produce $100 worth of bitcoin, or do you think that the regular financial system costs more than a few pennies to produce and maintain $100? It's true that the cost of printing a $100 bill does not cover all of the functions of the banking system, but it's also true that dollars don't even have to be printed to be used, and those which exist only as ledger entries are far cheaper. So I think 0.1% is more like an upper bound than a lower one.
Barrin92 7y ago
the energy consumption of crypto transactions is quite dramatic. While it's true that most human inventions are fictions, some are more useful than others. A current bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 500kwh, which is about as much as a residential customer in the US uses in about two weeks. Or as a twitter user put it, "bitcoin is like leaving your car running over night to solve sudokus that you can trade for heroin." And even though there is no current shortage of compute, opportunity cost still exists. Those units of compute or energy could be put to use that is a little more sensible. We could be using the compute equivalent of the nation of Colombia to collectively simulate cancer drug molecules, or provide free resources to startups in the third world or just about anything that is more difficult than sending money from A to B, which we figured out how to do with much less resources decades ago. I think even buying a carrier pigeon might be more energy efficient (and possibly less prone to hacking) than cryptocurrency.
- fredfoobar 7y ago
  > We could be using the compute equivalent of the nation of Colombia to collectively simulate cancer drug molecules, or provide free resources to startups in the third world or just about anything that is more difficult than sending money from A to B Get off HN and do it! what's stopping you?? > which we figured out how to do with much less resources decades ago. I think even buying a carrier pigeon might be more energy efficient (and possibly less prone to hacking) than cryptocurrency. Sorry, you don't understand Bitcoin, you should do some research before making such shallow, reductionist arguments. "Stone is better, why do you need metal? it's so much work to make metal implements" "We have horses, why do you need cars that pollute the air??" "Why do you need a smart phone, I have a desktop computer to do all that" "Why do you need the internet?, we've already figured out how to send messages to each other via mail" Stop acting like this is a zero sum game.
totoglazer 7y ago
Energy has a cost. The current price does not reflect the externalities well, so the actual cost is higher than the apparent. This is very unfortunate for everyone planning on living on earth in the next few thousand years.

DenisM 7y ago

> It's as if we're taking away compute from "productive" processes that are in a dire need of compute! Compute? No. Energy? Yes, because today energy comes at the expense of environment which is running thin on the ground. > I suspect this is just an intellectual circle jerk. Come on, was that really necessary?

hombre_fatal 7y ago
Just seems like a weird hill to die on that's convenient because HN doesn't like bitcoin and gets to grandstand on saving the environment. Someone just as judgemental could criticize HNers for all the energy they waste using high powered devices to sit on HN. Or air conditioning their entire house when they could simply sweat a little bit or use a fan in the one room they are in. Or driving to the movies when they could twiddle their thumbs at home for entertainment. This is why it seems like such a belabored circlejerk.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  But is it a minor waste of energy, like a lot of things people worry about? A $100 bill costs around 10 cents to print. The value of bitcoin is defined by the cost of the energy dissipated to mine it, so that means it's a thousand times more expensive than conventional money. Do you disagree with that logic?
  - fredfoobar 7y ago
    This is another one of my pet peeves. So, you think a dollar bill is printed and that's it, there's no ecosystem around it to secure and manage the logistics around our current banking system. Sit down and think for a bit before typing out shallow comments like that.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      One of my pet peeves is when people point out something is not particularly precise and then wave their hands and declare that makes up for three orders of magnitude difference. Of course there is an ecosystem around regular money. There's no way it costs 1,000 times as much per dollar as printing the money, and, the major, universal complaint about bitcoin has been that it doesn't provide an alternative to all of the additional functions of the conventional banking system, so your point seems doubly void to me.
      - fredfoobar 7y ago
        what "additional functions" are you referring to? I haven't set foot in a bank in a decade, I need someone to refresh my memory. How can you consider my point "void" if it does provide some of the functions? I can't understand how you can acknowledge the "ecosystem around regular money" and ignore it in the very next sentence and resort to your narrative of "1000 times the cost of printing a dollar", lol! And you complain about hand-waving? italicizing "doesn't" isn't really a way to convince someone about what's missing.
        perl4ever 7y ago
        If a pair of roller skates provides some of the functions of a car, is that a justification for it costing 1,000 times as much as a car? I'm not saying "oh, this is idiotic" because when something seems extremely dumb, often it's just because of some missing context. But you'll have to explain more if I'm going to understand. And I don't understand what you don't understand about the factor of a thousand difference. Do you think that less than $100 in energy is dissipated in order to produce $100 worth of bitcoin, or do you think that the regular financial system costs more than a few pennies to produce and maintain $100? It's true that the cost of printing a $100 bill does not cover all of the functions of the banking system, but it's also true that dollars don't even have to be printed to be used, and those which exist only as ledger entries are far cheaper. So I think 0.1% is more like an upper bound than a lower one.

Barrin92 7y ago

the energy consumption of crypto transactions is quite dramatic. While it's true that most human inventions are fictions, some are more useful than others. A current bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 500kwh, which is about as much as a residential customer in the US uses in about two weeks. Or as a twitter user put it, "bitcoin is like leaving your car running over night to solve sudokus that you can trade for heroin." And even though there is no current shortage of compute, opportunity cost still exists. Those units of compute or energy could be put to use that is a little more sensible. We could be using the compute equivalent of the nation of Colombia to collectively simulate cancer drug molecules, or provide free resources to startups in the third world or just about anything that is more difficult than sending money from A to B, which we figured out how to do with much less resources decades ago. I think even buying a carrier pigeon might be more energy efficient (and possibly less prone to hacking) than cryptocurrency.

fredfoobar 7y ago
> We could be using the compute equivalent of the nation of Colombia to collectively simulate cancer drug molecules, or provide free resources to startups in the third world or just about anything that is more difficult than sending money from A to B Get off HN and do it! what's stopping you?? > which we figured out how to do with much less resources decades ago. I think even buying a carrier pigeon might be more energy efficient (and possibly less prone to hacking) than cryptocurrency. Sorry, you don't understand Bitcoin, you should do some research before making such shallow, reductionist arguments. "Stone is better, why do you need metal? it's so much work to make metal implements" "We have horses, why do you need cars that pollute the air??" "Why do you need a smart phone, I have a desktop computer to do all that" "Why do you need the internet?, we've already figured out how to send messages to each other via mail" Stop acting like this is a zero sum game.

totoglazer 7y ago

Energy has a cost. The current price does not reflect the externalities well, so the actual cost is higher than the apparent. This is very unfortunate for everyone planning on living on earth in the next few thousand years.