5 ms·

I'm not fighting here. Your comment came off as dismissive to some growing and legitimate concerns. And don't forget. Bitcoin is not replacing these other inst

I'm not fighting here. Your comment came off as dismissive to some growing and legitimate concerns. And don't forget. Bitcoin is not replacing these other institutions that need energy. Stop handwaving away the problem, because it's inconvenient for you to hear.

o_p 5y ago
BTC miners buy the energy to power their nodes and that cost is passed to the users in transaction fees. The only legitimate criticism here may be that energy prices dont account for the externalities of carbon emissions. But thats irrelevant of how the energy is actually used
- SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
  You're missing the point. We shouldn't be using the energy period. Like, regardless of where we are getting our energy from, we should be making efforts to massively reduce consumption across the board. Bitcoin mining doesn't help this at all. Capitalism be damned. I've realized that you likely have made up your mind on this and my arguments won't sway you. That's fine by me, as long as others that have read can get it.
  - o_p 5y ago
    >regardless of where we are getting our energy from So you dont care about the actual real problem which is carbon emissions? >we should be making efforts to massively reduce consumption across the board Why? Theres no problem with the consumption of renewable energies When you want to trample on people's freedoms just because you dont deem them "worthy" of consuming energy its no wonder that people gives you the finger.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
      When the externalities of your actions cause undue harm to others, your activities are no longer appropriate. I consider the damage to the environment caused by all this mining to be an end game that results in misery for everyone. Your responses are obviously hostile, so I'm going to bid thee adieu. EDIT: Lest we forget, there's a thing in Libertarianism called the Non-Aggression Principle (aka NAP). If your actions are an aggression on the health and well-being of our planet and future generations, this would violate NAP. Bitcoin violates NAP in the long run. Ergo, Bitcoin is a net negative. QED.
      - meff 5y ago
        > When the externalities of your actions cause undue harm to others, your activities are no longer appropriate. And, according to you, which criteria should we use to define whether some externality causes "harm" or not and whether that harm is "undue" or not? If I decide to spend all my days playing games on my computer (which is wasteful energy-wise and probably does not contribute meaningfully to humanity's welfare), am I causing harm to others? What if I decide to cut down trees in my plot of land: am I causing harm to others? What if I decide to shower using potable water, thereby depriving other people from that drinkable water? Is this harm "undue"? Should I be punished for this? If yes, how are you going to punish me and by how much? Who decides this? Based on which criteria? > Lest we forget, there's a thing in Libertarianism called the Non-Aggression Principle (aka NAP). If your actions are an aggression on the health and well-being of our planet and future generations, this would violate NAP. 1) So, me using resources I acquired/paid for as I see fit is "aggressing" someone else? Under this logic, most human activities could be seen as an aggression, in one way or another (by applying resources in X, you are witholding them from being used in Y, thus "aggressing" everyone who benefits from Y happening over X). 2) Under a Libertarian framework, how exactly do you expect to enforce any sort of anti-NAP rule or law? Hope you brought your army with you. Your general idea requires people to agree on what is "harmful" or not and whether that harm is "undue" or not. Good luck with having people agree on that. TL;DR: Even if we assume "bitcoin mining" to lead to externalities that cause undue harm to others (not just normal harm, but undue harm), the same applies to many (most?) other human activities... you can always frame any resource allocation as "depriving someone from resources". Under this logic, we should ban anything I don't see as useful, because reasons.
shawnz 5y ago
> I'm not fighting here. I think their point was that militaries are doing the fighting as of right now, but nobody is talking about how that's a useless waste of energy and we could "just agree" to do things more efficiently by not fighting. Because in practice "just agreeing" isn't so easy. > And don't forget. Bitcoin is not replacing these other institutions that need energy. I don't think that's obviously true.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

o_p 5y ago

BTC miners buy the energy to power their nodes and that cost is passed to the users in transaction fees. The only legitimate criticism here may be that energy prices dont account for the externalities of carbon emissions. But thats irrelevant of how the energy is actually used

SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
You're missing the point. We shouldn't be using the energy period. Like, regardless of where we are getting our energy from, we should be making efforts to massively reduce consumption across the board. Bitcoin mining doesn't help this at all. Capitalism be damned. I've realized that you likely have made up your mind on this and my arguments won't sway you. That's fine by me, as long as others that have read can get it.
- o_p 5y ago
  >regardless of where we are getting our energy from So you dont care about the actual real problem which is carbon emissions? >we should be making efforts to massively reduce consumption across the board Why? Theres no problem with the consumption of renewable energies When you want to trample on people's freedoms just because you dont deem them "worthy" of consuming energy its no wonder that people gives you the finger.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - SwimSwimHungry 5y ago
    When the externalities of your actions cause undue harm to others, your activities are no longer appropriate. I consider the damage to the environment caused by all this mining to be an end game that results in misery for everyone. Your responses are obviously hostile, so I'm going to bid thee adieu. EDIT: Lest we forget, there's a thing in Libertarianism called the Non-Aggression Principle (aka NAP). If your actions are an aggression on the health and well-being of our planet and future generations, this would violate NAP. Bitcoin violates NAP in the long run. Ergo, Bitcoin is a net negative. QED.
    - meff 5y ago
      > When the externalities of your actions cause undue harm to others, your activities are no longer appropriate. And, according to you, which criteria should we use to define whether some externality causes "harm" or not and whether that harm is "undue" or not? If I decide to spend all my days playing games on my computer (which is wasteful energy-wise and probably does not contribute meaningfully to humanity's welfare), am I causing harm to others? What if I decide to cut down trees in my plot of land: am I causing harm to others? What if I decide to shower using potable water, thereby depriving other people from that drinkable water? Is this harm "undue"? Should I be punished for this? If yes, how are you going to punish me and by how much? Who decides this? Based on which criteria? > Lest we forget, there's a thing in Libertarianism called the Non-Aggression Principle (aka NAP). If your actions are an aggression on the health and well-being of our planet and future generations, this would violate NAP. 1) So, me using resources I acquired/paid for as I see fit is "aggressing" someone else? Under this logic, most human activities could be seen as an aggression, in one way or another (by applying resources in X, you are witholding them from being used in Y, thus "aggressing" everyone who benefits from Y happening over X). 2) Under a Libertarian framework, how exactly do you expect to enforce any sort of anti-NAP rule or law? Hope you brought your army with you. Your general idea requires people to agree on what is "harmful" or not and whether that harm is "undue" or not. Good luck with having people agree on that. TL;DR: Even if we assume "bitcoin mining" to lead to externalities that cause undue harm to others (not just normal harm, but undue harm), the same applies to many (most?) other human activities... you can always frame any resource allocation as "depriving someone from resources". Under this logic, we should ban anything I don't see as useful, because reasons.

shawnz 5y ago

> I'm not fighting here. I think their point was that militaries are doing the fighting as of right now, but nobody is talking about how that's a useless waste of energy and we could "just agree" to do things more efficiently by not fighting. Because in practice "just agreeing" isn't so easy. > And don't forget. Bitcoin is not replacing these other institutions that need energy. I don't think that's obviously true.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]