5 ms·

People have found bitcoin valuable to them. There are a million other things people spend money (energy) on that are just as wasteful if not more. Why not elimi

People have found bitcoin valuable to them. There are a million other things people spend money (energy) on that are just as wasteful if not more. Why not eliminate movie theaters, air conditioning, travel, sports? People should be free to do as they please and this is all enabled by energy.

speedgoose 7y ago
It's all about finding a balance. Some people think we should reduce our energy consumption but still maintain a good quality of life. We could cut the energy consumption of bitcoin to zero and the quality of life of everyone would not change at all.
- renewiltord 7y ago
  That's not true. There are people who are making a living of trading Bitcoin whose lives will deteriorate. Since Bitcoin only functions when it's hard, cutting the energy consumption means cutting the thing. And attempting to control things like this is a whack-a-mole expedition. If you'd like to account for the carbon externalities, then do so. Tax carbon emissions. Proxy by purchases of fossil fuels if you have to. The reason we don't do that is that most people are rampant polluters. They know it, because when you put the numbers up, we know something interesting: most of those attempting to shame others here are rampant polluters, emitting large multiples of the median human's carbon. The truth is you can't maintain the standard of life you're talking about at the emissions necessary. Shame doesn't work here. Only policy. Tax the carbon if that's what you don't like. Tax the sound if that's what you don't like. Tax the land on its value if you think this is an uneconomical use of the land. But shaming is ineffective. You will walk away with the dopamine rush of outrage, having achieved nothing of note.
  - bdcravens 7y ago
    Wouldn't the same be true of eliminating anything in society? If we all went to electric cars, those in the petro industry would suffer. After all, I don't hear anyone in the Bitcoin community decrying the bank jobs when they wax poetic about putting the banks out of business.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      Oh no, we absolutely should allow for people to change. Few things in the world are Pareto-optimal and we should not restrict change to Pareto-optimal things alone. But the comment I responded to said this: > We could cut the energy consumption of bitcoin to zero and the quality of life of everyone would not change at all. Now I'm not one to normally be pedantic, but if we actually treat this non-literally we're faced with an optimization problem: how much is it worth reducing the quality of life of these people to ensure that energy isn't "wasted"? So either you take the statement as a rhetorical flourish, in which case it is an inadequate response that merely relies on emotive appeals. Or you take the statement as literal, in which case it is obviously true. I guessed at a path but perhaps I should have articulated both sides. As it turns out I guessed wrong and you can see from his response that it was just an optimization problem inadequately specified.
  - speedgoose 7y ago
    The people living from Bitcoin are so few that they don't really matter. I'm sure many of them would find another well paid occupation shortly after and I wouldn't be sorry for the ones that would have to reduce the costs of their lifestyle. I do think social shaming is very powerful, but it must be used correctly. Shaming Bitcoin professionals is fine in my opinion.
    - renewiltord 7y ago
      I don't think it will be effective. Are you interested in laying a bet with some time-frame? You don't have to be, but I find that it clarifies my priors appropriately.
      - andirk 7y ago
        Your bet can be in a Ethereum smart contract based on a date and BTC/USD price.

speedgoose 7y ago

It's all about finding a balance. Some people think we should reduce our energy consumption but still maintain a good quality of life. We could cut the energy consumption of bitcoin to zero and the quality of life of everyone would not change at all.

renewiltord 7y ago
That's not true. There are people who are making a living of trading Bitcoin whose lives will deteriorate. Since Bitcoin only functions when it's hard, cutting the energy consumption means cutting the thing. And attempting to control things like this is a whack-a-mole expedition. If you'd like to account for the carbon externalities, then do so. Tax carbon emissions. Proxy by purchases of fossil fuels if you have to. The reason we don't do that is that most people are rampant polluters. They know it, because when you put the numbers up, we know something interesting: most of those attempting to shame others here are rampant polluters, emitting large multiples of the median human's carbon. The truth is you can't maintain the standard of life you're talking about at the emissions necessary. Shame doesn't work here. Only policy. Tax the carbon if that's what you don't like. Tax the sound if that's what you don't like. Tax the land on its value if you think this is an uneconomical use of the land. But shaming is ineffective. You will walk away with the dopamine rush of outrage, having achieved nothing of note.
- bdcravens 7y ago
  Wouldn't the same be true of eliminating anything in society? If we all went to electric cars, those in the petro industry would suffer. After all, I don't hear anyone in the Bitcoin community decrying the bank jobs when they wax poetic about putting the banks out of business.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    Oh no, we absolutely should allow for people to change. Few things in the world are Pareto-optimal and we should not restrict change to Pareto-optimal things alone. But the comment I responded to said this: > We could cut the energy consumption of bitcoin to zero and the quality of life of everyone would not change at all. Now I'm not one to normally be pedantic, but if we actually treat this non-literally we're faced with an optimization problem: how much is it worth reducing the quality of life of these people to ensure that energy isn't "wasted"? So either you take the statement as a rhetorical flourish, in which case it is an inadequate response that merely relies on emotive appeals. Or you take the statement as literal, in which case it is obviously true. I guessed at a path but perhaps I should have articulated both sides. As it turns out I guessed wrong and you can see from his response that it was just an optimization problem inadequately specified.
- speedgoose 7y ago
  The people living from Bitcoin are so few that they don't really matter. I'm sure many of them would find another well paid occupation shortly after and I wouldn't be sorry for the ones that would have to reduce the costs of their lifestyle. I do think social shaming is very powerful, but it must be used correctly. Shaming Bitcoin professionals is fine in my opinion.
  - renewiltord 7y ago
    I don't think it will be effective. Are you interested in laying a bet with some time-frame? You don't have to be, but I find that it clarifies my priors appropriately.
    - andirk 7y ago
      Your bet can be in a Ethereum smart contract based on a date and BTC/USD price.