3 ms·

If $1 in BTC is responsible for ~$0.50 (I don't buy this claim)...imagine how much damage central banks cause by debasing currencies to fight endless wars, fund

If $1 in BTC is responsible for ~$0.50 (I don't buy this claim)...imagine how much damage central banks cause by debasing currencies to fight endless wars, funding corruption through a class of useless cantillonaires, exacerbating inequality, etc.... Central bank corruption probably even indirectly funded the stupidity that allows articles like these to be branded as "science"...to the casual observer this might seem like a stretch but it really is not. "Debase the money, debase society..."

BTCOG 6y ago
And look at us being downvoted into oblivion. CensoredNews. I fail to see how the comment sections here are at all real when it's blatantly apparent it's constantly manipulated and censored. You can't leave honest commentary on HackerNews unless it agrees with the HackerNews Zeitgeist.
- bingbong70 6y ago
  I expect many of the people here are one or two-hops downstream of the corrupt cantillon class whether they realize it or not (who makes risk-free stock-buybacks possible? Central banks). Not surprised by their response to the potential decentralization of the monetary system using BTC...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
aww_dang 6y ago
The military industrial complex, petrodollar system and endless wars seem more quantifiable than any "climate damages" measured in a dollar cost. You can simply observe the number of deaths. Even harder to measure the lost economic productivity created by price fixing. BTC's popularity among speculators is arguably due to artificially cheap credit and economic manipulation. If you accept that you can attribute these so called "climate costs" back to central banking. The entire premise has so many elite promotions baked in that it becomes hard to approach logically. For me the headline reads as pure nonsense. I'd hoped true believers of central planning and anthropogenic climate apocalypse would find some of these leaps a bit too far. The comments read as a false dichotomy between bitcoin absolutists and warmists. Cryptocurrencies can operate without the energy usage of bitcoin. Subjective value tells us that individuals will have different preferences for energy consumption. We don't have to agree that it is efficient or demand that everyone agree on a preference for efficiency as we define it. The other goalpost of the dichotomy is more like a high voltage line. Instead of electrocuting myself and opening a debate on climate change, I'd prefer to simply note that many disagree for a variety of philosophical or scientific reasons.

BTCOG 6y ago

And look at us being downvoted into oblivion. CensoredNews. I fail to see how the comment sections here are at all real when it's blatantly apparent it's constantly manipulated and censored. You can't leave honest commentary on HackerNews unless it agrees with the HackerNews Zeitgeist.

bingbong70 6y ago
I expect many of the people here are one or two-hops downstream of the corrupt cantillon class whether they realize it or not (who makes risk-free stock-buybacks possible? Central banks). Not surprised by their response to the potential decentralization of the monetary system using BTC...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

aww_dang 6y ago

The military industrial complex, petrodollar system and endless wars seem more quantifiable than any "climate damages" measured in a dollar cost. You can simply observe the number of deaths. Even harder to measure the lost economic productivity created by price fixing. BTC's popularity among speculators is arguably due to artificially cheap credit and economic manipulation. If you accept that you can attribute these so called "climate costs" back to central banking. The entire premise has so many elite promotions baked in that it becomes hard to approach logically. For me the headline reads as pure nonsense. I'd hoped true believers of central planning and anthropogenic climate apocalypse would find some of these leaps a bit too far. The comments read as a false dichotomy between bitcoin absolutists and warmists. Cryptocurrencies can operate without the energy usage of bitcoin. Subjective value tells us that individuals will have different preferences for energy consumption. We don't have to agree that it is efficient or demand that everyone agree on a preference for efficiency as we define it. The other goalpost of the dichotomy is more like a high voltage line. Instead of electrocuting myself and opening a debate on climate change, I'd prefer to simply note that many disagree for a variety of philosophical or scientific reasons.