5 ms·

This is both a good and a fair critique of bitcoin. But I don't understand the endgame. Should the use of bitcoin be banned or just shamed? Let's assume for a

by Me1000 6y ago

This is both a good and a fair critique of bitcoin. But I don't understand the endgame. Should the use of bitcoin be banned or just shamed? Let's assume for a moment that I live "off the grid" and run my full BTC node using my own solar power. Is that something that should be banned? Should it be shamed? I don't know where to draw the line.

paulgb 6y ago
This is a great question and I don’t have all the answers, but I’d at least like to see CEOs who put it on their balance sheet put to task for it. E.g. putting it on your books should be penalized by ESG funds. Elon Musk shouldn’t get away with greenwashing it through Tesla’s (possibly overrated anyway) environmental halo. Nor should California taxpayers be subsidizing electric vehicles if the carbon benefits are negated by the manufacturer’s Bitcoin holdings.
- gruez 6y ago
  >This is a great question and I don’t have all the answers, but I’d at least like to see CEOs who put it on their balance sheet put to task for it Should CEOs who put gold on their balance sheets be put to task for the environmental damage that causes? Should companies that buy conflict minerals be put to task for that as well? If so, you're just describing a pollution tax.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    Yes, I think they should. The difference between this and a tax is that it’s not done by the government, but for what it’s worth I don’t oppose that either.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > Should companies that buy conflict minerals be put to task for that as well? They very frequently are.
- wskinner 6y ago
  What is the marginal environmental impact of a company adding 1BTC to its balance sheet?
  - pcdoodle 6y ago
    Nothing, The miners are already securing the bitcoin network regardless of companies adding them to their balance sheets.
- pcdoodle 6y ago
  Teslas holdings do not cause emissions. Every time I see one of these bitcoin climate articles on HN the quality of dialog and general knowledgeability of the subject at hand, takes a nose dive.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    Sure, technically it’s not holding that increases emissions, it’s buying, but you can’t hold without buying. Buying increases the market price, which increases the market value of the block reward, which increases the amount of energy miners are willing to use to earn the block reward.
    - pcdoodle 6y ago
      And also increases the demand for more efficient mining rigs and pushes miners to move equipment. When we sold the miners we used to heat our building back in the winter of 2017, We made sure they went to an ethical place (a hydro dam in OR). In some cases, it's a neat way to store energy that would otherwise be waisted.
the_cat_kittles 6y ago
banning bitcoin would be fine with me, because i think the tradeoff is a bad one.
wmf 6y ago
The endgame should be a global carbon tax.
- Me1000 6y ago
  In my original comment I said I favor carbon taxes (in addition to other measures to stop carbon emissions). But the comment I'm replying to seems to imply that it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, that bitcoin is bad regardless of how the electricity is generated.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    If the externalities were properly accounted for, I wouldn’t have a problem with Bitcoin. It wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but neither are lots of things. It’s purely the externalities I care about. A global carbon tax would be great if it were enforceable but it’s not. Just look at how we treat our oceans. It’s especially a problem with Bitcoin since production will naturally shift to the cheapest location, and since it’s fungible and non-physical this can’t be accounted for with trade law/sanctions the same way it could with manufacturing.

by Me1000 6y ago

paulgb 6y ago

This is a great question and I don’t have all the answers, but I’d at least like to see CEOs who put it on their balance sheet put to task for it. E.g. putting it on your books should be penalized by ESG funds. Elon Musk shouldn’t get away with greenwashing it through Tesla’s (possibly overrated anyway) environmental halo. Nor should California taxpayers be subsidizing electric vehicles if the carbon benefits are negated by the manufacturer’s Bitcoin holdings.

gruez 6y ago
>This is a great question and I don’t have all the answers, but I’d at least like to see CEOs who put it on their balance sheet put to task for it Should CEOs who put gold on their balance sheets be put to task for the environmental damage that causes? Should companies that buy conflict minerals be put to task for that as well? If so, you're just describing a pollution tax.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Yes, I think they should. The difference between this and a tax is that it’s not done by the government, but for what it’s worth I don’t oppose that either.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > Should companies that buy conflict minerals be put to task for that as well? They very frequently are.
wskinner 6y ago
What is the marginal environmental impact of a company adding 1BTC to its balance sheet?
- pcdoodle 6y ago
  Nothing, The miners are already securing the bitcoin network regardless of companies adding them to their balance sheets.
pcdoodle 6y ago
Teslas holdings do not cause emissions. Every time I see one of these bitcoin climate articles on HN the quality of dialog and general knowledgeability of the subject at hand, takes a nose dive.
- paulgb 6y ago
  Sure, technically it’s not holding that increases emissions, it’s buying, but you can’t hold without buying. Buying increases the market price, which increases the market value of the block reward, which increases the amount of energy miners are willing to use to earn the block reward.
  - pcdoodle 6y ago
    And also increases the demand for more efficient mining rigs and pushes miners to move equipment. When we sold the miners we used to heat our building back in the winter of 2017, We made sure they went to an ethical place (a hydro dam in OR). In some cases, it's a neat way to store energy that would otherwise be waisted.

the_cat_kittles 6y ago

banning bitcoin would be fine with me, because i think the tradeoff is a bad one.

wmf 6y ago

The endgame should be a global carbon tax.

Me1000 6y ago
In my original comment I said I favor carbon taxes (in addition to other measures to stop carbon emissions). But the comment I'm replying to seems to imply that it doesn't matter where the electricity comes from, that bitcoin is bad regardless of how the electricity is generated.
- paulgb 6y ago
  If the externalities were properly accounted for, I wouldn’t have a problem with Bitcoin. It wouldn’t be my cup of tea, but neither are lots of things. It’s purely the externalities I care about. A global carbon tax would be great if it were enforceable but it’s not. Just look at how we treat our oceans. It’s especially a problem with Bitcoin since production will naturally shift to the cheapest location, and since it’s fungible and non-physical this can’t be accounted for with trade law/sanctions the same way it could with manufacturing.