5 ms·
No, the Government should petition bigger Governments to regulate (/ban) what is clearly a waste of Earth's and Humanity's resources.
by ArkanExplorer 6y ago
No, the Government should petition bigger Governments to regulate (/ban) what is clearly a waste of Earth's and Humanity's resources.
- NullPrefix 6y agoAre you talking about capitalism in general or just some specific activity?
- ArkanExplorer 6y agoI am talking about Proof-of-Work being attached to an 'asset' of astronomical value. Governments should ban the transaction of PoW cryptocurrencies on environmental grounds, in addition to the misallocation of computer chips.
- disruptalot 6y agoBitcoin without PoW has no value. It's the entire reason it works. Without expending a finite resource to produce another, you can't constrain a money supply nor prevent it from attacks. Governments would be unwise to ban a voluntary system for the same reason they don't ban any other uses of energy that people question the value of (there are plenty). In any case, it will not stop, only move. If not to another massive farm in a favorable jurisdiction (that could be captured) then to smaller sections where it is unidentifiable.
- chromanoid 6y agoThere are many things governments rightfully ban for ecological reasons (e.g. energy inefficient house building, inefficient light bulbs, single-use plastic, blast fishing, many forms of waste disposal). Just because Bitcoin happens on the computer should not exempt it from that.
- codecamper 6y agoWell then if we must choose between planet, and greaseballs, we'll choose the planet any day.
- findff 6y agoCommunists hate proof of work.
- dgellow 6y ago> Bitcoin without PoW has no value Exactly. It’s broken by design. Let’s get rid of it ASAP and instead focus on blockchains that may have value without the horrible incentives of PoW. We shouldn’t keep Bitcoin alive just because it was the first successful attempt. That has been tried, it’s now clear it’s not sustainable over the long-term. We should learn the lesson and move on to a better approach.
- keymone 6y ago> It’s broken by design. it's genius by design. so far nothing other than PoW was shown to work. > We shouldn’t keep Bitcoin alive just because it was the first successful attempt. you're not keeping it alive, it exists in a free market and there is demand for it. > That has been tried, it’s now clear it’s not sustainable over the long-term. not clear at all. so far looks like it's the most sustainable system of decentralized value storage and transfer compared to all others.
- chromanoid 6y ago>> That has been tried, it’s now clear it’s not sustainable over the long-term. > not clear at all. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ So sustainable...
- keymone 6y agoYeah. It really is.
- zadler 6y ago> Without expending a finite resource to produce another, you can't constrain a money supply nor prevent it from attacks. Correct, but it doesn’t have to be energy intensive. Bitcoin /could/ move to proof of stake, technically.
- danlugo92 6y agoIf bitcoin is so bad why not let the free market tank it eventually?
- UncleMeat 6y agoBecause the free market isn't great at finding solutions that incorporate externalities, especially not quickly.