5 ms·

But should there be other reason to ban it? Not just bitcoin, but proof of work coins in general: * power usage * environmental issues * worsening chip short

But should there be other reason to ban it? Not just bitcoin, but proof of work coins in general: * power usage * environmental issues * worsening chip shortage Do we have technical reason for proof of work? Isn't proof of stake as safe anyway? I would be in favor of banning PoW. Projects can switch anyway

trident5000 6y ago
The govt couldnt even ban TikTok and now institutions who pay for their campaigns are balls deep in the industry. Its going nowhere.
kjksf 6y ago
If you're really concerned about any of that, we should start by banning video games. Then Netflix and YouTube. All those GPUs wasted on rendering Cyberpunk 2077! All this energy wasted playing Minecraft! Come to think of it, you should stop reading and commenting on HN. Every minute you unnecessarily keep you laptop powered uses energy and destroys the environment. Do your part to prevent the tragedy, I beg of you!
- aboringusername 6y ago
  It's absolutely hilarious to see these arguments made on HN, I don't actually hold much faith in online discourse and clearly the propaganda (by the BBC et al) has _really_ worked. Yet what about the websites that load over 10MB of JS/other tracking scripts? Globally it probably uses more energy than entire continents! Or at the very least uses 5-10% of battery life that could otherwise be saved. Let's start by banning > 1MB of tracking related JS/adverts which do far, far, far more damage than Bitcoin. Sauce: Use a simple web browser on mobile, one with adblock/tracking block and one without, see how fast the device with no adblock reaches 0%, I bet it doesn't take much time at all on the really heavy JS pages. Lol.
  - Luker88 6y ago
    Projects can switch to proof of stake. no mining, people don't lose money, still decentralized. I specifically pointed out that it's not about banning bitcoin. Make bitcoin a PoS. You can keep trading, you can keep being decentralized. bitcoin and PoW are separate. bitcoin *can* be updated. Why so defensive on PoW?
    - tekproxy 6y ago
      Pos hasn't been proven to work yet. Byzantine generals problem was unsolved for years until Bitcoin.
      - ben_w 6y ago
        Not so, RSA signed messages were suggested in 1999: http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf
solveit 6y ago
Instead of banning whatever arbitrary thing the government deems to be using too much electricity, you could just tax carbon.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ben_w 6y ago
  And tax imports from places which don’t tax carbon. Works for physical stuff, doesn’t work for digital stuff.
  - solveit 6y ago
    Depends on the digital stuff. BTC in particular is incredibly traceable. Tax on conversion to fiat if source of BTC is a country that doesn't tax carbon. Any sensible anti money laundering system should be tracking all the relevant information anyway.
xienze 6y ago
> * power usage > * environmental issues Might want to take a gander at who is really using all that energy mining Bitcoin: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b... The environmental impact argument to me seems like more of the same: China wastes energy and pollutes on a massive scale and western countries are the ones getting a stern talking to. Give me a break, it’s a convenient argument, but at the end of the day Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth.
- Luker88 6y ago
  bitcoin can still work on PoS, we should stop thinking it as a single, unmovable, un-updatable thing. A switch to PoS like ETH2 is not going to make it lose value, decentralization and might even be an opportunity to go beyond the ridiculous 4-7 transactions/sec limit. Going beyond the 4-7 transaction/sec would make so that exchanges stop asking you to give up control of the money, thus making it even more decentralized. I see only positive benefits in switching to Pos. Lose nothing, gain everything
- TomatoDash 6y ago
  > Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth. What is the evidence for the "regular citizens" claim? Is there data on which social groups are over-/underrepresented in Bitcoin holding compared to non-Bitcoin wealth holding? My guess is that groups low in regular wealth/income are disproportionally low in Bitcoin wealth. Government activities such as defense, education and infrastructure will still need funding. If some resource A shifts to Bitcoin and, assuming for argument, thereby becomes non-taxable won't some other non-Bitcoin resource B be taxed instead, with no net "hands off" effect?

trident5000 6y ago

The govt couldnt even ban TikTok and now institutions who pay for their campaigns are balls deep in the industry. Its going nowhere.

kjksf 6y ago

If you're really concerned about any of that, we should start by banning video games. Then Netflix and YouTube. All those GPUs wasted on rendering Cyberpunk 2077! All this energy wasted playing Minecraft! Come to think of it, you should stop reading and commenting on HN. Every minute you unnecessarily keep you laptop powered uses energy and destroys the environment. Do your part to prevent the tragedy, I beg of you!

aboringusername 6y ago
It's absolutely hilarious to see these arguments made on HN, I don't actually hold much faith in online discourse and clearly the propaganda (by the BBC et al) has _really_ worked. Yet what about the websites that load over 10MB of JS/other tracking scripts? Globally it probably uses more energy than entire continents! Or at the very least uses 5-10% of battery life that could otherwise be saved. Let's start by banning > 1MB of tracking related JS/adverts which do far, far, far more damage than Bitcoin. Sauce: Use a simple web browser on mobile, one with adblock/tracking block and one without, see how fast the device with no adblock reaches 0%, I bet it doesn't take much time at all on the really heavy JS pages. Lol.
- Luker88 6y ago
  Projects can switch to proof of stake. no mining, people don't lose money, still decentralized. I specifically pointed out that it's not about banning bitcoin. Make bitcoin a PoS. You can keep trading, you can keep being decentralized. bitcoin and PoW are separate. bitcoin *can* be updated. Why so defensive on PoW?
  - tekproxy 6y ago
    Pos hasn't been proven to work yet. Byzantine generals problem was unsolved for years until Bitcoin.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Not so, RSA signed messages were suggested in 1999: http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf

solveit 6y ago

Instead of banning whatever arbitrary thing the government deems to be using too much electricity, you could just tax carbon.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ben_w 6y ago
And tax imports from places which don’t tax carbon. Works for physical stuff, doesn’t work for digital stuff.
- solveit 6y ago
  Depends on the digital stuff. BTC in particular is incredibly traceable. Tax on conversion to fiat if source of BTC is a country that doesn't tax carbon. Any sensible anti money laundering system should be tracking all the relevant information anyway.

xienze 6y ago

> * power usage > * environmental issues Might want to take a gander at who is really using all that energy mining Bitcoin: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-by-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1200477/bitcoin-mining-b... The environmental impact argument to me seems like more of the same: China wastes energy and pollutes on a massive scale and western countries are the ones getting a stern talking to. Give me a break, it’s a convenient argument, but at the end of the day Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth.

Luker88 6y ago
bitcoin can still work on PoS, we should stop thinking it as a single, unmovable, un-updatable thing. A switch to PoS like ETH2 is not going to make it lose value, decentralization and might even be an opportunity to go beyond the ridiculous 4-7 transactions/sec limit. Going beyond the 4-7 transaction/sec would make so that exchanges stop asking you to give up control of the money, thus making it even more decentralized. I see only positive benefits in switching to Pos. Lose nothing, gain everything
TomatoDash 6y ago
> Bitcoin is a way for regular citizens to (mostly) keep the government’s hands off their wealth. What is the evidence for the "regular citizens" claim? Is there data on which social groups are over-/underrepresented in Bitcoin holding compared to non-Bitcoin wealth holding? My guess is that groups low in regular wealth/income are disproportionally low in Bitcoin wealth. Government activities such as defense, education and infrastructure will still need funding. If some resource A shifts to Bitcoin and, assuming for argument, thereby becomes non-taxable won't some other non-Bitcoin resource B be taxed instead, with no net "hands off" effect?