6 ms·
This is simply perverse.
by eevilspock 6y ago
This is simply perverse.
- gruez 6y agoIt's perverse, just like almost every other form of economic activity on this planet, eg. farming (fertilizer/herbicide run-off), mining (tailing ponds), factories (air/ground/water pollution). The underlying reason is simple: externalities aren't being priced in, which allows the owners of such operations to make money while everyone pays the price.
- palijer 6y agoNone of what you listed are similar cases. Farming produced food to eat. Mining produces minerals to build things with. Factories produce goods. Bitcoin produces... A series of bits that some people will pay money for? It seems like bitcoin is basically fine art at this point.
- jude- 6y agoBitcoin is proof that a thing can be a commodity without having a corporeal manifestation.
- chii 6y ago> Bitcoin produces... trust. It's only a moral judgement that bitcoin energy use is somehow worse than say, transport, or heating, or anything else that people pay money for.
- zepto 6y agoBitcoin doesn’t produce trust. It just produces a verified log.
- chii 6y agowhich people trust to be unmodifiable and thus, dependable. That's what it means to trust it. I have blind faith in the banking system (and blind faith that the gov't regulation keeps them honest), but i can trust the blockchain.
- zepto 6y agoThat’s a category error. The blockchain is a document. The banking system is people. Do you trust people to always give you $60,000 in exchange for a Bitcoin? Do you trust regulators not to tax Bitcoin or put onerous ‘anti-laundering’ conditions on its use?
- gruez 6y agoIt goes back to what you mean by "perverse". For me it's "business reaping the benefits but passing the costs to someone else". For you it seems to be "pollution being generated but nothing 'useful' is being done". Is that an accurate characterization? >Mining produces minerals to build things with are you forgetting the yellow stuff that we hoard in vaults and hang on our bodies, or carbon crystals that we put on our fingers?
- tshaddox 6y agoBitcoin is obviously producing money for these miners, just like farms, mines, and factories. And wait, are you suggesting that we should also ban using electricity to create art?
- zepto 6y agoBitcoin produces money for the miners just like cigarette companies, kidnap for ransom, and muggings.
- tshaddox 6y agoJust like those things? That sounds like a stretch. As far as I can tell, we’re talking about the externalities of the energy usage of Bitcoin miners, which are the same per unit of energy (given some generation method) as any other usage of energy. That’s not even remotely comparable to activities that directly earn money by stealing or getting people addicted.
- zepto 6y ago> That sounds like a stretch. No more of a stretch as comparing it to farming or art. I’m not making a judgement here, just listing other activities that make money for people and which have externalities, since ‘making money for the miners’ is claimed as a good. You be the judge.
- tshaddox 6y ago> No more of a stretch as comparing it to farming or art. Indeed, and that’s precisely my point. The externality problem ought to be addressed directly instead of creating a new regulatory body to decide which goods are “good” and thus allowed to have externalities and which goods are “bad” and thus are banned completely or banned from having externalities.
- zepto 6y ago> The externality problem ought to be addressed directly What does ‘directly’ mean? > instead of creating a new regulatory body to decide which goods are “good” and thus allowed to have externalities and which goods are “bad” and thus are banned completely or banned from having externalities. How would you apply this direct approach to muggings or cigarette companies?