4 ms·

You're equating shortage driven by organic demand to that of shortage from cryptomining. The fundamental difference is that with organic demand, people typical

by rl3 6y ago

You're equating shortage driven by organic demand to that of shortage from cryptomining. The fundamental difference is that with organic demand, people typically just want one card. With crypto, the incentive is to get your hands on as many cards as you can, fuck everyone else. Then we find ourselves in this race to the bottom. Moreover, trying to equate the energy use of both activities is laughable when mining creates an environment where idle compute resources translate to lost profits. I'm sure many people have taken up watching movies instead. Thing is, the net energy use is still vastly higher because mining creates a perverse incentive for virtually all GPUs to be hoarded, while drawing power 24/7. I don't disagree that a large swath of gaming culture is a cesspool, nor do I disagree that crypto has beneficial uses. I do however think both are beyond the scope of this discussion. What I'm saying is that the Proof-of-Work model has run amok and is a net detriment to society right now in its current incarnation.

chroem- 6y ago
Your argument is much like answering yes to the question "Does a pound of bricks weigh more than two pounds of feathers?" Gaming still uses more energy, even if you try to rationalize it by invoking the motivations of the people consuming the energy.
- rl3 6y ago
  It's peculiar you chose to focus on gaming. What of professional uses cases? Science, art, engineering. Even so, GPU demand from gaming is satisfiable. Mining demand only ceases once the price of the underlying instruments fall sufficiently. More mining won't necessarily make that happen. My argument is that the mining dynamic itself is potentially insatiable and fundamentally detrimental on a societal level, whilst highly distasteful at that. It's like advocating for a never-ending greed olympics.
  - chroem- 6y ago
    The focus on gaming is just as arbitrary as the focus on bitcoin, and that's my point. Gaming consumes more energy than bitcoin and yet its economic justification is even less clear. And yes, gamers do cause GPU hardware shortages, and they have done so many times in the past. It boggles my mind that your hill to die on in fighting the "never-ending greed olympics" is a tool that's predominantly used by small-time retail investors, i.e. regular people. According to your system of ethics, it's preferable to be an old-money banker that profits off of the destruction of economy, than it is to be a person using tools (cryptocurrency) designed to divest control over the economy from said profiteers. I strongly suggest you take your war on greed to Wall Street, rather than directing it at the people trying to dismantle the greedy system in the first place.
    - rl3 6y ago
      The difference is that under normal circumstances, a single GPU typically satisfies one person. With crypto mining right now, the more GPUs you buy, the more money you make. The demand is effectively infinite. The two dynamics couldn't be further from equivalency. As for your boggled mind that's seemingly decoded my system of ethics and preferences, I can't really speak to war plans I've no interest in. That said, I don't view hoarding resources as dismantling a greedy system. Two wrongs don't make a right.
      - chroem- 6y ago
        My point is that, if your goals are really to fight climate change and stop greed in finance, then your priorities are ass-backwards at best, and self-defeating at worst. However, this appears to be more about control than actually accomplishing either of those goals. >With crypto mining right now, the more GPUs you buy, the more money you make. The demand is effectively infinite. Here, you admit that your core objection is other people have the wrong economic preferences according to you. The problem isn't the externalities, but rather the mere existence of the demand preference for GPUs. It's a page straight out of the former eastern bloc command economies.
        rl3 6y ago
        I never said anything about goals. Nor anything about climate change. In fact, my prior comment plainly communicated that I've no interest. Yet, you still attack these points. Except, they're not my points. Stop erecting strawmen. As for your analysis that basically insinuates I'm a communist, consider how the United States government would respond to a cryptocurrency-fueled chip shortage that was negatively impacting national security.
        chroem- 6y ago
        Climate change and greed were the motivations you originally provided for attacking bitcoin, but now you claim those things don't matter at all. You're being evasive. The US is a market economy, and like in any other market economy, the solution is to increase supply rather to attack demand. This is what has been done in the past for all the other chip shortages fueled by gamers.

by rl3 6y ago

chroem- 6y ago

Your argument is much like answering yes to the question "Does a pound of bricks weigh more than two pounds of feathers?" Gaming still uses more energy, even if you try to rationalize it by invoking the motivations of the people consuming the energy.

rl3 6y ago
It's peculiar you chose to focus on gaming. What of professional uses cases? Science, art, engineering. Even so, GPU demand from gaming is satisfiable. Mining demand only ceases once the price of the underlying instruments fall sufficiently. More mining won't necessarily make that happen. My argument is that the mining dynamic itself is potentially insatiable and fundamentally detrimental on a societal level, whilst highly distasteful at that. It's like advocating for a never-ending greed olympics.
- chroem- 6y ago
  The focus on gaming is just as arbitrary as the focus on bitcoin, and that's my point. Gaming consumes more energy than bitcoin and yet its economic justification is even less clear. And yes, gamers do cause GPU hardware shortages, and they have done so many times in the past. It boggles my mind that your hill to die on in fighting the "never-ending greed olympics" is a tool that's predominantly used by small-time retail investors, i.e. regular people. According to your system of ethics, it's preferable to be an old-money banker that profits off of the destruction of economy, than it is to be a person using tools (cryptocurrency) designed to divest control over the economy from said profiteers. I strongly suggest you take your war on greed to Wall Street, rather than directing it at the people trying to dismantle the greedy system in the first place.
  - rl3 6y ago
    The difference is that under normal circumstances, a single GPU typically satisfies one person. With crypto mining right now, the more GPUs you buy, the more money you make. The demand is effectively infinite. The two dynamics couldn't be further from equivalency. As for your boggled mind that's seemingly decoded my system of ethics and preferences, I can't really speak to war plans I've no interest in. That said, I don't view hoarding resources as dismantling a greedy system. Two wrongs don't make a right.
    - chroem- 6y ago
      My point is that, if your goals are really to fight climate change and stop greed in finance, then your priorities are ass-backwards at best, and self-defeating at worst. However, this appears to be more about control than actually accomplishing either of those goals. >With crypto mining right now, the more GPUs you buy, the more money you make. The demand is effectively infinite. Here, you admit that your core objection is other people have the wrong economic preferences according to you. The problem isn't the externalities, but rather the mere existence of the demand preference for GPUs. It's a page straight out of the former eastern bloc command economies.
      - rl3 6y ago
        I never said anything about goals. Nor anything about climate change. In fact, my prior comment plainly communicated that I've no interest. Yet, you still attack these points. Except, they're not my points. Stop erecting strawmen. As for your analysis that basically insinuates I'm a communist, consider how the United States government would respond to a cryptocurrency-fueled chip shortage that was negatively impacting national security.
        chroem- 6y ago
        Climate change and greed were the motivations you originally provided for attacking bitcoin, but now you claim those things don't matter at all. You're being evasive. The US is a market economy, and like in any other market economy, the solution is to increase supply rather to attack demand. This is what has been done in the past for all the other chip shortages fueled by gamers.