2 ms·
Maybe this is too idealistic, but like I said, the root issue feels like energy not being priced correctly (i.e., in a way that captures the true costs of energ
by alecbz 6y ago
Maybe this is too idealistic, but like I said, the root issue feels like energy not being priced correctly (i.e., in a way that captures the true costs of energy consumption to the climate/planet).
Rough analogy to "safer systems over safer processes": if an intern presses a big red button that brings down google, the problem isn't that they pressed that button, it's that there's a button any intern can just press to bring down google.
The fact that the market allows trades that are net negative is a bug. Bitcoin just happens to be the intern that pressed the button.
BUT, if we're in a state where we can't get rid of the big red button, it seems reasonable to get people to stop pressing it in the interim.
- Nursie 6y agoPricing in the 'true' externalities is a hard problem in itself to define. It's a problem that would require some sort of global standard (maybe in 20 years then), and one that would be pushed back upon by a large number of industries and interests. There are baby steps in some places, and there is massive progress in some countries towards renewables and carbon-zero energy. But in the current state, huge increases in energy consumption are a bad thing. So I think we're in a state where we could potentially get rid of the big red button but a lot of people don't really want to and the realistic chances of doing so are basically zero. And in that situation, yes, we call out the button pressers.