3 ms·

Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rati

Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rational choice. We could make different choices about all the things you listed, too. Or not! But you seem to be actually arguing for willful blindness, here.

trident5000 6y ago
aRE yOu SayInG tHat No Im actually not. You said that. Pointing out that you can cherry pick and micro-analyze anything.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  It was a question. You seemed to be implying that any such study would be "fear-mongering" (your words). That suggests that you think the studies wouldn't be useful and that we shouldn't do them. Your playground rhetoric isn't helpful.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
effie 6y ago
You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more research" and "lets regulate". That is irresponsible. Regulation should happen at the biggest most important polluters such as transport and coal plants.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  It's a single paper. It responsibly limits itself to a manageable conclusion and responsibly points out where there are still open questions. Can you point out where in the paper the authors leap to "let's regulate" as you put it? There seems to be one small section about regulation, but it doesn't exactly advocate for it: it describes how their pricing research could be used in regulation. It describes challenges in regulating. But it responsibly avoids making moral/policy claims.
  - effie 6y ago
    The whole paper shows implicit interest in taxing/regulating cryptocurrency mining instead of unbiased dispassionate scientific analysis. You can see this explicitly in the last section, starting with > However, the ability to locate, and re-locate, cryptomining almost anywhere (e.g., following the cheapest, under-regulated electricity source) and fund mining camps from anywhere with complete or near anonymity create significant challenges to implementing effective regulation
    - GavinMcG 6y ago
      Do you think a discussion of policy implications should somehow ignore relevant policy considerations? It's helpful for authors to point out how they think their work fits into the broader scheme of things. They correctly identify that a high cost to benefit ratio might make people interested in regulating it; they also correctly identify that practical concerns make that difficult. There is no advocacy there. Even if there were, it wouldn't be inappropriate to say "hey, there's a downside to this; we recommend trying to fix that."

trident5000 6y ago

aRE yOu SayInG tHat No Im actually not. You said that. Pointing out that you can cherry pick and micro-analyze anything.

GavinMcG 6y ago
It was a question. You seemed to be implying that any such study would be "fear-mongering" (your words). That suggests that you think the studies wouldn't be useful and that we shouldn't do them. Your playground rhetoric isn't helpful.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

effie 6y ago

You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more research" and "lets regulate". That is irresponsible. Regulation should happen at the biggest most important polluters such as transport and coal plants.

GavinMcG 6y ago
It's a single paper. It responsibly limits itself to a manageable conclusion and responsibly points out where there are still open questions. Can you point out where in the paper the authors leap to "let's regulate" as you put it? There seems to be one small section about regulation, but it doesn't exactly advocate for it: it describes how their pricing research could be used in regulation. It describes challenges in regulating. But it responsibly avoids making moral/policy claims.
- effie 6y ago
  The whole paper shows implicit interest in taxing/regulating cryptocurrency mining instead of unbiased dispassionate scientific analysis. You can see this explicitly in the last section, starting with > However, the ability to locate, and re-locate, cryptomining almost anywhere (e.g., following the cheapest, under-regulated electricity source) and fund mining camps from anywhere with complete or near anonymity create significant challenges to implementing effective regulation
  - GavinMcG 6y ago
    Do you think a discussion of policy implications should somehow ignore relevant policy considerations? It's helpful for authors to point out how they think their work fits into the broader scheme of things. They correctly identify that a high cost to benefit ratio might make people interested in regulating it; they also correctly identify that practical concerns make that difficult. There is no advocacy there. Even if there were, it wouldn't be inappropriate to say "hey, there's a downside to this; we recommend trying to fix that."