4 ms·

The obvious problem here is that we don't value things rationally or properly, and bubbles happen. If we're in a Tulip Crypto Bubble, then the 'market winner' i

The obvious problem here is that we don't value things rationally or properly, and bubbles happen. If we're in a Tulip Crypto Bubble, then the 'market winner' isn't really a 'winner' in the grand scheme. Especially if we 'die of climate change', it'll look like the plebes were acting on bad information, in hindsight. (I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point). It actually is not that hard to stand outside of a market and make interventions which are super rational. We ban and regulate all sorts of things. There is actually no reason for a lot of energy to be used in the distribution of new crypto, there are a number of other ways, it's a completely arbitrary mechanism that happens to have real-world side effects. I don't think they should ban crypto, but they should definitely ban crypto that arbitrarily uses quite a lot of energy.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
> The obvious problem here is that we don't value things rationally or properly, and bubbles happen. If we're in a Tulip Crypto Bubble, then the 'market winner' isn't really a 'winner' in the grand scheme. Especially if we 'die of climate change', it'll look like the plebes were acting on bad information, in hindsight. (I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point). The reason it's called a bubble is because it pops. Even if BTC were inflated to the point where even with externalities priced in that it made sense to mine on dirty energy, the moment the bubble pops this will stop. There's nothing wrong with punishing people who act on bad information. Not allowing firms to fail is how we get banks and firms like Uber who exploit labor while losing money faster than they can raise more rounds. > It actually is not that hard to stand outside of a market and make interventions which are super rational. I'm pretty sure if this were true, you'd solve multiple hard, open problems in game theory, statistics, and economics. Problems like the Multi-Armed Bandit or Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The US Tax Code is as byzantine as it is because of its piecemeal attempts to make market interventions. The US healthcare system is likewise what happens when the government creates an incentive structure with unforeseen negative externalities. > We ban and regulate all sorts of things. Of course and we should continue to. But emissions of energy usage is a very complicated problem. Did I save on emissions by using a thermal cooker, or did the use of my gas stove just to have the cooker come to temperature end up using more emissions than an induction stove would result in cooking the meal regularly in a pot or pan? Even this depends on the energy mixture of your grid. Oh and what about the input emissions to making your induction stove, would that make things even out in the end? Banning things to solve such a complicated problem is silly and you'll run out of political will fast. It's all fine-and-dandy when the internet mobs want to ban crypto, but what happens when the government tells you that you can't drive your F150 to the store a mile away to pickup milk? Turning energy efficiency into a political fight over banning goods and services will be a quick way to stall any progress. > but they should definitely ban crypto that arbitrarily uses quite a lot of energy Until crypto creators come up with new incentive schemes that come up with different, less understood negative externalities. Attacking the problem at its source is much simpler than playing whack-a-mole.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago

> The obvious problem here is that we don't value things rationally or properly, and bubbles happen. If we're in a Tulip Crypto Bubble, then the 'market winner' isn't really a 'winner' in the grand scheme. Especially if we 'die of climate change', it'll look like the plebes were acting on bad information, in hindsight. (I'm being hyperbolic here but you get my point). The reason it's called a bubble is because it pops. Even if BTC were inflated to the point where even with externalities priced in that it made sense to mine on dirty energy, the moment the bubble pops this will stop. There's nothing wrong with punishing people who act on bad information. Not allowing firms to fail is how we get banks and firms like Uber who exploit labor while losing money faster than they can raise more rounds. > It actually is not that hard to stand outside of a market and make interventions which are super rational. I'm pretty sure if this were true, you'd solve multiple hard, open problems in game theory, statistics, and economics. Problems like the Multi-Armed Bandit or Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. The US Tax Code is as byzantine as it is because of its piecemeal attempts to make market interventions. The US healthcare system is likewise what happens when the government creates an incentive structure with unforeseen negative externalities. > We ban and regulate all sorts of things. Of course and we should continue to. But emissions of energy usage is a very complicated problem. Did I save on emissions by using a thermal cooker, or did the use of my gas stove just to have the cooker come to temperature end up using more emissions than an induction stove would result in cooking the meal regularly in a pot or pan? Even this depends on the energy mixture of your grid. Oh and what about the input emissions to making your induction stove, would that make things even out in the end? Banning things to solve such a complicated problem is silly and you'll run out of political will fast. It's all fine-and-dandy when the internet mobs want to ban crypto, but what happens when the government tells you that you can't drive your F150 to the store a mile away to pickup milk? Turning energy efficiency into a political fight over banning goods and services will be a quick way to stall any progress. > but they should definitely ban crypto that arbitrarily uses quite a lot of energy Until crypto creators come up with new incentive schemes that come up with different, less understood negative externalities. Attacking the problem at its source is much simpler than playing whack-a-mole.