11 ms·

This is some of the worst junk writing I've seen on the hill. Some pretty wrong things in here, like insinuating that the only value of crypto is to criminals,

• jandrese 5y ago
  > Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. Is Bitcoin offsetting other uses that those renewables would have gone for or are people building solar farms out of their Bitcoin gains to fund more Bitcoin?
  • cwkoss 5y ago
    Bitcoin mining can serve as a price floor to incentivize green energy production - ex. An otherwise unprofitable solar farm could be profitable because instead of peak production getting sent to the grid at low or negative rates, they can mine Bitcoin and monetize that energy that doesn't have other demand. This is certainly not universally the case at the moment. It is probably offsetting in the majority of cases currently. But I bet there are a non-zero number of renewable energy products that were able to get greenlit purely because crypto mining can function as a buyer of last resort, and this number will continue increasing. Bitcoin mining uses a higher proportion of green energy than most other industries though, so I think this energy use criticism is pretty shallow. Some people just don't like Bitcoin and so are enthusiastic to have a reason to complain about it that doesn't require any critical thinking about energy markets. These people believe Bitcoin is entirely worthless, so they'd complain about any level of energy usage, because there is no upside in their calculus.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    So Bitcoin shouldn't use renewables because there may be other uses of renewables? I genuinely don't get the energy use argument, this is much more of a government policy problem than a cryptocurrency problem. It feels like this could be extended to any company or product you don't like because you want to save the clean energy for the approved uses.
• thrill 5y ago
  "Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard" Well, it got that part right. Any non-POS scheme is just trading stake for something else, and buying and burning energy, no matter how green the source, is pure unnecessary waste. Skip the trading part and save the world. Your examples of use are all good.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    I do agree, proof of work at this point is entirely outdated. I actually don't invest in Bitcoin because I think a lot of the technology is antiquated, and there are better solutions for everything but the network affect.
• ren_engineer 5y ago
  the people calling to ban crypto don't care about the environment, that's just an easy selling point for them to garner public support from people who normally wouldn't care. It's all about control of the financial system
  • aww_dang 5y ago
    What's your opinion on carbon credits?
  • lancemurdock 5y ago
    very much agree
  • brodo 5y ago
    I know a lot of people in XR and FF who are against crypto because of the environment.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    I think it's probably a lot of motives, but one of them is that most of our (USA) politicians are too old, and frankly many too dumb, to properly grasp nuanced topics like these. They don't understand crypto, or the internet, or cyber warfare, or larger economic conflict, or any number of critical things they should be well informed on. Their prime focus is on getting reelected and pushing their own agenda, not good stewardship of the nation. I agree that they are pandering on the environment point, there are much more valuable things to spend your time on if you're worried about the environment.
• Jasper_ 5y ago
  > though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables Bullshit. When one coal mine in a remote region of China flooded, the Bitcoin hash rate measurably dropped by 30%. Keep in mind this was just one coal mine. Not all of China's production. https://fortune.com/2021/04/20/bitcoin-mining-coal-china-environment-pollution/ https://fortune.com/2021/04/20/bitcoin-mining-coal-china-env... > it's more apt to call it Web 3.0 than cryptocurrency at this point. I've said this so many times: But what does it doooooo??? Name one project that isn't "speculation" or "loans" built on cryptocurrency that has seen any uptick or utility. NFTs sure ain't it. DAOs sure ain't it. Supply chain tracking sure ain't it. I haven't seen one work. Don't say it's the early internet and we'll find one eventually, because it's been 12 years since Bitcoin's launch in 2009, and the ideas are all still junk. Widespread broadband to the home was in strong demand in the early 90s, and Amazon was already selling books while dwellings with connectivity were in the single-digit numbers. The 80s saw university lines saturated by BBSes, newsgroups and MUDs. There was far more demand than supply, and it was very immediately clear what the utility was.
  • throwslackforce 5y ago
    Just because it doesn't serve a clear purpose doesn't mean it should be banned. If governments simply allowed cryptocurrencies to exist outside of any regulation except the obligation to pay taxes on transactions and gains, eventually participation would decline as users of the currencies lost their money to scams or mismanagement, in the absence of a state interest in protecting participants. If the system is designed to resist state intervention, maybe letting it run as designed, and suffer the consequences, is the best approach. There's no need to regulate it out of existence just because it serves no apparent purpose. This is one case where the market will sort that out if we let it.
  • jrm4 5y ago
    Not even that there is absence of evidence -- but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Moreover, your cherrypicking of "Internet-type" inventions that develop very quickly are definitely outliers. By contrast, the answering machine was invented in the 1930's, and didn't take off until 50ish years later. It's absurdly and ignorantly early to declare "crypto has no utility."
• whateveracct 5y ago
  Don't call it Web 3.0 - these projects have proven very little to imply they are the true next progression of the "Web." Most of the use-cases don't even especially benefit from decentralization. The main reason they have blockchains and coins is so the project founders can cash out the moment they release a mainnet (thus getting paid by the fans they hype up.) Look at dfinity (ICP) for a recent example. First week or two it was selling for as high as $600ish and as low as almost $150. Now it goes for $44. Someone is always holding the founders' bag - their newfound cash came from somewhere! EDIT: upon googling, it appears dfinity is getting sued for this potential pump and dump
  • nscalf 5y ago
    That may be a fair criticism of the naming. My point was more that it doesn't make sense to be called cryptocurrency, and less that it's the true next progression of the web. With regards to the cash outs, I think there's probably an argument to be made about web 1.0 and 2.0 companies that were highly unprofitable with no way to ever become profitable. There were investors propping up companies with bad fundamentals, IPO'ing, cashing out, and in the end the tech bubble pops and takes down the market and retail investors with it. Crypto definitely does it more quickly and violently, but it's not a crypto specific phenomenon.
    • whateveracct 5y ago
      True that it isn't crypto specific.
• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jlmorton 5y ago
  > and all but saying that the reason there are hackings to things like critical infrastructure is because crypto exists Just to play devil's advocate, how do you imagine ransomware would work outside of crypto? There had been a few toy ransomware attacks before Bitcoin, but the regulated payment industry ultimately prevented any major ransomware industry from developing. Bitcoin has changed all of that. Since the release of CryptoLocker, the industry has exploded into a multi-billion dollar racket. From my perspective, this industry did not and cannot exist absent cryptocurrency. I don't think this is cause to shutdown crypto convertibility, but it also can't be dismissed out of hand.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    I’m not too well read into this space, but I would argue a large cause in the boom of hacking is external to crypto. The fact that so much monetary value and information has moved online would make me believe the pie was by growing regardless of crypto. The article points out the Biden administration being unsure of how to tackle the hacking problem, but governmental infrastructure being hacked is not a monetary extraction problem, it’s a national security problem. I’m much more concerned about power companies being shut down than Target leaking customer records, for example. I definitely won’t say crypto isn’t used effectively for ransomware payments, it’s obviously the current go to. My issue is the article seems to reduce it down to ceteris paribus, hacking wouldn’t be a problem. When many of the bad actors here are nation states, that is not a valid argument.
• api 5y ago
  Give me one Web 3.0 thing that a non-trivial number of people use that is not directly related back to cryptocurrency itself (speculation, exchanges, gambling, etc.). A product? A service? A game? A hosting solution? The only one I can think of is Sia and maybe FileCoin if they actually ship something useful, and those have only a tiny number of actual users. I guess maybe Steemit if someone actually still uses that. We are now in year 13 of the cryptocurrency revolution and I'm having trouble thinking of anything you can do with this stuff.
  • aww_dang 5y ago
    Think about this in the context of the discussion. Does it follow that we should ban crypto if it doesn't appeal to you? Or should you just not use it personally?
    • api 5y ago
      I'm just responding to the debate about whether cryptocurrency is useful beyond... itself. For the record I don't believe it should be banned broadly speaking. Banning legal exchanges for proof of work cryptocurrencies is something I might be convinced is a good idea since PoW is a disaster, but I would not support banning non-PoW consensus cryptocurrencies. Get rid of PoW and a lot of the bad shit about cryptocurrency is gone. Yes you can still buy droogs with it, but most droogs are bought with cash anyway. Cryptocurrency is a small fraction of the droog market.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    I described some of this in other comments, but my favorite use case is Vechain (I hold their coin). They primarily focus on supply chain logistics, Walmart uses them for their food supply chain. Food validation is a big issue in China, so you can scan a QR code and get information on where your food has been and the temperature it has been kept at all along the chain. They also just released a covid passport for the small country of San Marino. Beyond just Vechain, Cardano is working with Ethiopia to give five million students a blockchain-based ID that will allow the government to track their academic performance. There are more examples like these, though admittedly many of them have been announced in the past year or so. Ethereum, which is a bit older than these projects, is on path to clear $1-2 Trillion this year. I know the argument that this is early days isn't very compelling, but I think it makes more sense to look at generation 3 cryptos as the start of crypto's focus being fully blockchain projects instead of currency replacements.
• mdoms 5y ago
  > Some pretty wrong things in here, like insinuating that the only value of crypto is to criminals, and all but saying that the reason there are hackings to things like critical infrastructure is because crypto exists Both of these are true. > Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard This is true.
  • nyrosis 5y ago
    Fossil fuel production is an environmental hazard. Motivating wealth production through destruction of the environment is irresponsible. Green Energy production is an environmental boon Motivating wealth production through green energy utilization is responsible.
• legulere 5y ago
  But where are cryptocurrencies used as a currency except by criminals? They offer no benefit for legal transactions except in rare edge cases.
  • nscalf 5y ago
    "Cryptocurrency" is really an outdated name. Most of these don't claim to be currencies and aren't trying to replace standard money. Even bitcoin has pivoted to be a store of wealth with scarcity built in, akin to gold. Very few really think it should/will become a true replacement for typical currency at this point. Edit: They do become a very valid replacement for a store of wealth in less stable economies however. Venezuela has seen a lot of utility from Bitcoin since their currency is even more volatile than Bitcoin is. You could imagine the quantity of countries that applies to grows as Bitcoin (or another coin) gets more adoption and it's price becomes less volatile. Particularly things like stable coins, which are pinned to the US dollar (1 stable coin effectively always equals $1).
• agloeregrets 5y ago
  > Then it flags bitcoin as an environmental hazard, though estimates seem to be ~50-70% of BTC energy use is from renewables. Here is a brilliant idea...What if all of that renewable energy was...not wasted on crypto?
  • nscalf 5y ago
    So we can waste it on watching porn, pumping water to golf courses, running the light in your fridge, charging your fitbit, or whatever else you choose to do with it. You can extend that argument to anything that uses power which you don't approve of. Your problem isn't with crypto, it's with the power grid. Here's a brilliant idea: what if you did the leg work to lobby your politicians to push for a power grid that did what you wanted without having to limit innovation...instead of complaining online?
    • agloeregrets 5y ago
      No, it's really not. Every single thing you mentioned uses 100-100,000 times less power in whole of the entire world than Crypto uses. Your comment is like saying 'the problem with fossil fuels is not with their pollution but with that our planet is too sensitive to their output, change your planet, keep the fuel!' If Crypto is innovation than it should innovate itself into making sense on the planet it exists. This is why POS-based crypto is key to the future but there are WAY too many miners and HODLers that don't want to lose their income because it was based on bad choices.