5 ms·

The problem is deciding what is waste. I think your gaming system is waste, therefore you should not be able to buy one. It has no important utility, given the

by fleddr 5y ago

The problem is deciding what is waste. I think your gaming system is waste, therefore you should not be able to buy one. It has no important utility, given the catastrophe ahead. You can't just pick one thing you happen to dislike or find unimportant whilst at the same time listing your own waste as in fact being very much needed. The idea of mining being wasteful is of course a popular talking point for those not in crypto, yet the 100+ million owners of bitcoin would disagree and see it as the essential feature to secure the network. Further, the word "waste" needs far more nuance. Clearly, mining is highly energy intensive, yet that doesn't mean it has to be wasteful. Increasingly, mining is done using clean energy whilst also in particular seeking out stranded energy, which is not in competition with other uses.

bordercases 5y ago
If the implication is that waste conditions are too diverse then we take it on a case by case basis. 100+ million owners can still be wrong. BTC is still no better than the US dollar for almost all transactions that don't require obfuscation, which is most of them. And furthermore since its economic value in use is primarily pegged to its ability to convert to USDT, it's then just a form of USD derivative which banks have had to regulate in other settings. Spending all that energy to mine addresses that act as USD derivatives, when USD is still there, when derivatives can be created without these numbers, is waste.
klipt 5y ago
Let's just tax CO2 production and let the market sort it out.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Yes, just accounting better for negative externalities (that is, making externalities internal) would solve a lot problems. But, given how hard it is to get people on board to pay for something that was seen as free or close to it before is (see CA trying to fix messed up water rights), I don't have high hopes for that.
  - fleddr 5y ago
    I think one way or another, we have to accept less material wealth, which is going to be a hard sell in any case. My idea is to trade less stuff for more economic security.
  - aidenn0 5y ago
    The irrational desire to never pay for something that was one free is powerful. I live in SoCal and see BMW 7 series diving around looking for street parking to save the $1.50/hr parking charge. I can't imagine what would happen to sla politician who would suggest putting in parking meters!
    - kbenson 5y ago
      I wonder how much of this is money and how much is because of time and inconvenience. A spot without any fee is the baseline for a lot of people. A spot with one of those dedicated meters that's at each space and takes it's own card or change is slightly inconvenient, but not too much. Those lots that have a central place to pay that takes a card are less convenient, but not too egregious. Those lots that require you go find the central box just to have it tell you a lot code, and then you have to go back and find the spot number, just so you can got to a website to enter the information (I hope you have a good memory, or took some pictures) and pay online are the bane of my existence, and I will happily drive around looking for any other option for a minute or two (FWIW, in my minivan most often, but I don't know how much of your perception is BMW assisted ;) ). On the other hand, if you could just have it auto-deduct from the same account that pays tolls on the bridges in the bay area through license plate recognition with a similar level of "you park and walk away" automation, I think most people would happily just deal with it because of the convenience.
      - aidenn0 5y ago
        These lots are attended; you get a ticket when you enter and you can pay cash or credit from your car when you leave
    - sanderjd 5y ago
wk_end 5y ago
That's not really a problem. For better or worse, no major economy on Earth is completely libertarian, so countries can make democratic or otherwise decisions about what constitutes waste - even if they're inconsistent or seemingly arbitrary. Sucks for the people who disagree, but that's the social contract for ya.
- fleddr 5y ago
  That's certainly possible, but I think you're far too optimistic about political feasibility, because it's largely a new concept. Right now, if I have money, I am free to use it on wasteful products as I please. I can buy a massive truck, 5 times too large for my needs, just because I can. People are used to this liberty. You may get some public support when something is banned that a huge majority agrees on, but things will quickly turn sour when it actually starts to hurt. When people are simply banned from buying that 75" TV. It's all cool until it's not. You can imagine the political opportunity of being the party that does allow everything. Pricing by CO2 output, as the other commenter suggested, likely is simpler.
  - wk_end 5y ago
    We're not talking about regulating all kinds of waste though; we're talking about regulating (proof-of-work) crypto. And I think that, absolutely, is politically feasible. As for things like massive trucks and giant TVs - well, steps are (slowly) being taken to regulate the former, at least; think of all those countries that swear up-and-down that all cars sold there will be electric in 10 or 20 years or whatever. But that's an extreme example, and this isn't really a new concept at all: plenty of things are made illegal or economically impractical due to regulations, environmental or otherwise. Giant TVs, though - yeah, those are unlikely to be regulated any time soon. But then, that was the substance of my comment that I sort of feel you failed to engage with: government is absolutely free - via public opinion, some objective metric, or their own whims - to decide what's too wasteful to allow. Giant TVs, probably not. Massive trucks, getting there. Bitcoin? Well, it's not crazy to suggest it, anyway. ETA: also, speaking of political feasibility and carbon taxes - do you think a regressive tax that drives up the price of virtually everything has more popular appeal than a targeted ban on crypto mining? Here in Canada our carbon tax has faced enormous political opposition, as did the one in France.
jollybean 5y ago
It's a myth that only markets can determine what is 'waste'. We make non-market determinations all day long because we're also rational and can apply reason in systems. Using tons of energy to distribute crypto is a 'waste' that just might not seem like it because of how a small group of individuals want to spend their money. What would we think of a bunch of billionaires, getting together, and burning giant amounts of oil in their backyards, 24/7, for no other reason than 'they want to'? Well, the market would deem that 'efficient' because the Billionaires value the Oil just to burn it for no reason. It's their perogativem, technically. But we would view it as wasteful, because it is. So use another mechanism to distribute crypto and that's that.
- fleddr 5y ago
  Just Bitcoin alone has a 100+ million users and its user base is exponentially growing at a speed larger than both the rise of Facebook and the internet as a whole. So no, you cannot "absolutely" state that it is a waste as if it is an established fact. You likely consider it a waste as you believe it has no function, and zero value. You're free to believe that, but it doesn't make it fact. Clearly, the high energy usage is not "because they want to", it has an essential function: securing the network. Bitcoin will never switch to another distribution mechanism.
  - jollybean 5y ago
    We ban Ponzi schemes with 'millions of users' even though the people involved don't think they are a 'waste'. BTC has zero 'users' - because it can't be used for anything, and it's a waste. This is mostly a fact, because it's possible to be objective about things. If Bill Gates burned $2B in Oil in his backyard for no reason, we would instantly make a law banning it. Why? Because it would be an easy way to stop 'waste' even if Gates did not think it was a 'waste'. There are other ways to distribute cryptocurrencies, they should definitively ban power consumption for such activities. It doesn't matter that BTC 'will always do such and such' - it's an irrelevant Ponzi scheme. At least the scammers can pick a scam that doesn't involve wasting energy which could be used for literally anything else.

by fleddr 5y ago

bordercases 5y ago

If the implication is that waste conditions are too diverse then we take it on a case by case basis. 100+ million owners can still be wrong. BTC is still no better than the US dollar for almost all transactions that don't require obfuscation, which is most of them. And furthermore since its economic value in use is primarily pegged to its ability to convert to USDT, it's then just a form of USD derivative which banks have had to regulate in other settings. Spending all that energy to mine addresses that act as USD derivatives, when USD is still there, when derivatives can be created without these numbers, is waste.

klipt 5y ago

Let's just tax CO2 production and let the market sort it out.

kbenson 5y ago
Yes, just accounting better for negative externalities (that is, making externalities internal) would solve a lot problems. But, given how hard it is to get people on board to pay for something that was seen as free or close to it before is (see CA trying to fix messed up water rights), I don't have high hopes for that.
- fleddr 5y ago
  I think one way or another, we have to accept less material wealth, which is going to be a hard sell in any case. My idea is to trade less stuff for more economic security.
- aidenn0 5y ago
  The irrational desire to never pay for something that was one free is powerful. I live in SoCal and see BMW 7 series diving around looking for street parking to save the $1.50/hr parking charge. I can't imagine what would happen to sla politician who would suggest putting in parking meters!
  - kbenson 5y ago
    I wonder how much of this is money and how much is because of time and inconvenience. A spot without any fee is the baseline for a lot of people. A spot with one of those dedicated meters that's at each space and takes it's own card or change is slightly inconvenient, but not too much. Those lots that have a central place to pay that takes a card are less convenient, but not too egregious. Those lots that require you go find the central box just to have it tell you a lot code, and then you have to go back and find the spot number, just so you can got to a website to enter the information (I hope you have a good memory, or took some pictures) and pay online are the bane of my existence, and I will happily drive around looking for any other option for a minute or two (FWIW, in my minivan most often, but I don't know how much of your perception is BMW assisted ;) ). On the other hand, if you could just have it auto-deduct from the same account that pays tolls on the bridges in the bay area through license plate recognition with a similar level of "you park and walk away" automation, I think most people would happily just deal with it because of the convenience.
    - aidenn0 5y ago
      These lots are attended; you get a ticket when you enter and you can pay cash or credit from your car when you leave
  - sanderjd 5y ago

wk_end 5y ago

That's not really a problem. For better or worse, no major economy on Earth is completely libertarian, so countries can make democratic or otherwise decisions about what constitutes waste - even if they're inconsistent or seemingly arbitrary. Sucks for the people who disagree, but that's the social contract for ya.

fleddr 5y ago
That's certainly possible, but I think you're far too optimistic about political feasibility, because it's largely a new concept. Right now, if I have money, I am free to use it on wasteful products as I please. I can buy a massive truck, 5 times too large for my needs, just because I can. People are used to this liberty. You may get some public support when something is banned that a huge majority agrees on, but things will quickly turn sour when it actually starts to hurt. When people are simply banned from buying that 75" TV. It's all cool until it's not. You can imagine the political opportunity of being the party that does allow everything. Pricing by CO2 output, as the other commenter suggested, likely is simpler.
- wk_end 5y ago
  We're not talking about regulating all kinds of waste though; we're talking about regulating (proof-of-work) crypto. And I think that, absolutely, is politically feasible. As for things like massive trucks and giant TVs - well, steps are (slowly) being taken to regulate the former, at least; think of all those countries that swear up-and-down that all cars sold there will be electric in 10 or 20 years or whatever. But that's an extreme example, and this isn't really a new concept at all: plenty of things are made illegal or economically impractical due to regulations, environmental or otherwise. Giant TVs, though - yeah, those are unlikely to be regulated any time soon. But then, that was the substance of my comment that I sort of feel you failed to engage with: government is absolutely free - via public opinion, some objective metric, or their own whims - to decide what's too wasteful to allow. Giant TVs, probably not. Massive trucks, getting there. Bitcoin? Well, it's not crazy to suggest it, anyway. ETA: also, speaking of political feasibility and carbon taxes - do you think a regressive tax that drives up the price of virtually everything has more popular appeal than a targeted ban on crypto mining? Here in Canada our carbon tax has faced enormous political opposition, as did the one in France.

jollybean 5y ago

It's a myth that only markets can determine what is 'waste'. We make non-market determinations all day long because we're also rational and can apply reason in systems. Using tons of energy to distribute crypto is a 'waste' that just might not seem like it because of how a small group of individuals want to spend their money. What would we think of a bunch of billionaires, getting together, and burning giant amounts of oil in their backyards, 24/7, for no other reason than 'they want to'? Well, the market would deem that 'efficient' because the Billionaires value the Oil just to burn it for no reason. It's their perogativem, technically. But we would view it as wasteful, because it is. So use another mechanism to distribute crypto and that's that.

fleddr 5y ago
Just Bitcoin alone has a 100+ million users and its user base is exponentially growing at a speed larger than both the rise of Facebook and the internet as a whole. So no, you cannot "absolutely" state that it is a waste as if it is an established fact. You likely consider it a waste as you believe it has no function, and zero value. You're free to believe that, but it doesn't make it fact. Clearly, the high energy usage is not "because they want to", it has an essential function: securing the network. Bitcoin will never switch to another distribution mechanism.
- jollybean 5y ago
  We ban Ponzi schemes with 'millions of users' even though the people involved don't think they are a 'waste'. BTC has zero 'users' - because it can't be used for anything, and it's a waste. This is mostly a fact, because it's possible to be objective about things. If Bill Gates burned $2B in Oil in his backyard for no reason, we would instantly make a law banning it. Why? Because it would be an easy way to stop 'waste' even if Gates did not think it was a 'waste'. There are other ways to distribute cryptocurrencies, they should definitively ban power consumption for such activities. It doesn't matter that BTC 'will always do such and such' - it's an irrelevant Ponzi scheme. At least the scammers can pick a scam that doesn't involve wasting energy which could be used for literally anything else.