5 ms·

I don't think it matters who you ask to investigate it, everyone except bitcoin users themselves will realise that it's an absurd waste of electricity, for very

I don't think it matters who you ask to investigate it, everyone except bitcoin users themselves will realise that it's an absurd waste of electricity, for very little added value.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
thebean11 6y ago
So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? You can't see the issue with that? And that still doesn't really answer whose job it is to ban all these things, and what mechanism would be used to enforce it.
- jevgeni 6y ago
  You conveniently omit the social cost. Enforcing could be done via banning any payment with bitcoin.
  - devlopr 6y ago
    Well not really. Most people buy coins because they believe the price will climb and never use them for buying. For the retailers who accept bitcoin many are in smaller countries where the law wouldn't apply and many semi-legimate uses (ordering weed by mail) would continue to accept payment this way because their activity is more illegal (carrys a bigger punishment) than the new bitcoin law would.
    - jevgeni 6y ago
      What is the point of BTC price climbing if you wouldn't be able to convert it to cash or pay for goods?
- jeromegv 6y ago
  It is good practice to question if a technology is worth the social cost of wasting so much electricity. This is literally how Bitcoin is built, as it keeps growing, it keeps consuming an insane amount of electricity, for a very little amount of transactions per day. This is call ethics, doesn't mean it should be illegal, but there is value in questioning it and investigate if perhaps there are better solutions than wasting energy.
- africanboy 6y ago
  > So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? If they produce a net negative for the majority and only benefit a small number of people, then yes. We don't go around driving tanks, do we? I love tanks, but there's a reason why we can't drive them to go to the mall.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  > So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? You can't see the issue with that? There is a difference between majority not liking and only like 0.2% of the world consuming more energy than _a whole country_. There are 5million bitcoin users, they are consuming more electricity than 44 million people's daily lives. Think about the scale of imbalance here.
  - shawnz 6y ago
    While the phrase "a whole country" sounds dramatic, that doesn't really put the usage into perspective compared to those other examples. For example MGM claims their properties in Nevada consume 171 MW. That's more than 65 of the countries from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      Let me rephrase that. 5 million people are using more energy for small parts of their daily transactions than 44 million people in their entire daily lives. Sounds pretty dramatic to me. Even if we say that the argentinian electricity consumption is 10x lower than anywhere else, it will still be 5million people's partial amounts of transaction and 4.4 million people's daily lives (which includes all the transactions they make daily).
- Grustaf 6y ago
  If the majority is 99% and that other fraction of 1% use an ENORMOUS amount of resources on their hobby, then yes it is reasonably to consider making it illegal.
Taek 6y ago
"for very little added value" That's an awfully subjective claim and one I find to be contentious. I think even today Bitcoin's impact on global politics has already provided massively more value to global society than all of the resources it has spent on electricity.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  What positive impact on global politics is it that Bitcoin has had that motivates all the energy spent?
  - beckingz 6y ago
    Money laundering
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
Again, reading the original comment, you can apply your very same line of reasoning to " Playing video games?" or the rest of the examples. Should all the people who don't play videogames also get together and ban gaming because they themselves don't benefit from it and it consumes "too much"?
- Grustaf 6y ago
  I think video games are a silly waste of time but I don't necessarily want to outlaw it. If playing one round of Mario Kart consumed several megawatt hours of energy though, I don't think anyone would want it to be allowed.
- newswasboring 6y ago
  Why do you stop taking into account scale? Gaming as a whole does provides entertainment to a large number of people and thus consumes large amount of energy. While bitcoin is providing benefits (real or imagined) to a very small fraction of people and consuming more electricity than a _whole country_. If red dead redemption was played by 10 people but consumed electricity equivalent to 100 people's daily life then we would be talking about regulation there too. BTW, afaik bitcoin has 5million users and Argentina's population is 44 million. Also, this energy consumption by 44million people includes all the activities you can think of to add to this argument.
  - ctdonath 6y ago
    Scale does not inherently excuse. Energy for gaming could be routed to feeding/warming the poor; should 100 die of starvation/hypothermia so that 1,000,000 can play Fortnite? do you really want to continue such reasoning?
    - newswasboring 6y ago
      Yes I do. This is why my country had a space program before we solved all our social issues. You need to look at how much good an activity actually does vs how much resources it will consume. Entertainment is a good thing so is space exploration. But ISRO did not consume more resources than all other social improvement plans combined. Bitcoin is consuming more energy than the daily lives of a whole country. _Combined_

I don't think it matters who you ask to investigate it, everyone except bitcoin users themselves will realise that it's an absurd waste of electricity, for very little added value.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

thebean11 6y ago

So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? You can't see the issue with that? And that still doesn't really answer whose job it is to ban all these things, and what mechanism would be used to enforce it.

jevgeni 6y ago
You conveniently omit the social cost. Enforcing could be done via banning any payment with bitcoin.
- devlopr 6y ago
  Well not really. Most people buy coins because they believe the price will climb and never use them for buying. For the retailers who accept bitcoin many are in smaller countries where the law wouldn't apply and many semi-legimate uses (ordering weed by mail) would continue to accept payment this way because their activity is more illegal (carrys a bigger punishment) than the new bitcoin law would.
  - jevgeni 6y ago
    What is the point of BTC price climbing if you wouldn't be able to convert it to cash or pay for goods?
jeromegv 6y ago
It is good practice to question if a technology is worth the social cost of wasting so much electricity. This is literally how Bitcoin is built, as it keeps growing, it keeps consuming an insane amount of electricity, for a very little amount of transactions per day. This is call ethics, doesn't mean it should be illegal, but there is value in questioning it and investigate if perhaps there are better solutions than wasting energy.
africanboy 6y ago
> So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? If they produce a net negative for the majority and only benefit a small number of people, then yes. We don't go around driving tanks, do we? I love tanks, but there's a reason why we can't drive them to go to the mall.
newswasboring 6y ago
> So things that the majority don't like / understand should be illegal because they use resources? You can't see the issue with that? There is a difference between majority not liking and only like 0.2% of the world consuming more energy than _a whole country_. There are 5million bitcoin users, they are consuming more electricity than 44 million people's daily lives. Think about the scale of imbalance here.
- shawnz 6y ago
  While the phrase "a whole country" sounds dramatic, that doesn't really put the usage into perspective compared to those other examples. For example MGM claims their properties in Nevada consume 171 MW. That's more than 65 of the countries from this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    Let me rephrase that. 5 million people are using more energy for small parts of their daily transactions than 44 million people in their entire daily lives. Sounds pretty dramatic to me. Even if we say that the argentinian electricity consumption is 10x lower than anywhere else, it will still be 5million people's partial amounts of transaction and 4.4 million people's daily lives (which includes all the transactions they make daily).
Grustaf 6y ago
If the majority is 99% and that other fraction of 1% use an ENORMOUS amount of resources on their hobby, then yes it is reasonably to consider making it illegal.

Taek 6y ago

"for very little added value" That's an awfully subjective claim and one I find to be contentious. I think even today Bitcoin's impact on global politics has already provided massively more value to global society than all of the resources it has spent on electricity.

Grustaf 6y ago
What positive impact on global politics is it that Bitcoin has had that motivates all the energy spent?
- beckingz 6y ago
  Money laundering

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

Again, reading the original comment, you can apply your very same line of reasoning to " Playing video games?" or the rest of the examples. Should all the people who don't play videogames also get together and ban gaming because they themselves don't benefit from it and it consumes "too much"?

Grustaf 6y ago
I think video games are a silly waste of time but I don't necessarily want to outlaw it. If playing one round of Mario Kart consumed several megawatt hours of energy though, I don't think anyone would want it to be allowed.
newswasboring 6y ago
Why do you stop taking into account scale? Gaming as a whole does provides entertainment to a large number of people and thus consumes large amount of energy. While bitcoin is providing benefits (real or imagined) to a very small fraction of people and consuming more electricity than a _whole country_. If red dead redemption was played by 10 people but consumed electricity equivalent to 100 people's daily life then we would be talking about regulation there too. BTW, afaik bitcoin has 5million users and Argentina's population is 44 million. Also, this energy consumption by 44million people includes all the activities you can think of to add to this argument.
- ctdonath 6y ago
  Scale does not inherently excuse. Energy for gaming could be routed to feeding/warming the poor; should 100 die of starvation/hypothermia so that 1,000,000 can play Fortnite? do you really want to continue such reasoning?
  - newswasboring 6y ago
    Yes I do. This is why my country had a space program before we solved all our social issues. You need to look at how much good an activity actually does vs how much resources it will consume. Entertainment is a good thing so is space exploration. But ISRO did not consume more resources than all other social improvement plans combined. Bitcoin is consuming more energy than the daily lives of a whole country. _Combined_