4 ms·

> 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

by 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?
  - tshaddox 6y ago
    > What does ‘directly’ mean? Whoever is polluting ought to pay for the damage of that pollution. That’s my view. No different than pouring toxins into the river outside the factory. > How would you apply this direct approach to muggings or cigarette companies? Well, I don’t know if there’s a great analogy for muggings. I’m all for going after organized crime, and for local law enforcement for random unorganized robberies. For cigarette companies, well, I’m pretty on board with most or all the regulations they were hit with in the 20th century.
    - zepto 6y ago
      In the case of Bitcoin the incentives of the system itself will drive miners to seek out and exploit locales where the externalities are least policed. This is part of the design, and everyone who transacts in Bitcoin benefits from this. Therefore the cost of those externalities should be borne by the network in the form of a transaction tax.

by zepto 6y ago

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?
- tshaddox 6y ago
  > What does ‘directly’ mean? Whoever is polluting ought to pay for the damage of that pollution. That’s my view. No different than pouring toxins into the river outside the factory. > How would you apply this direct approach to muggings or cigarette companies? Well, I don’t know if there’s a great analogy for muggings. I’m all for going after organized crime, and for local law enforcement for random unorganized robberies. For cigarette companies, well, I’m pretty on board with most or all the regulations they were hit with in the 20th century.
  - zepto 6y ago
    In the case of Bitcoin the incentives of the system itself will drive miners to seek out and exploit locales where the externalities are least policed. This is part of the design, and everyone who transacts in Bitcoin benefits from this. Therefore the cost of those externalities should be borne by the network in the form of a transaction tax.