4 ms·
If crypto was actually adopted as a means of buying and selling real world goods, instead of just being held as a speculative asset, then it would consume much
by monological 5y ago
If crypto was actually adopted as a means of buying and selling real world goods, instead of just being held as a speculative asset, then it would consume much less energy and be more efficient than the entire system, namely the military, that props up the value of the dollar. And that’s just the US military. Of course, the reason why you’re able to mine in the first place is because we have peace, due to the military. So calculating becomes a little more complicated than just crypto consumption versus military consumption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_States_military https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_usage_of_the_United_S...
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of-the-worlds-military-industrial-complex-carbon-emissions-2021 https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/bitcoin-emits-less-than-2-of...
- arcticbull 5y agoHow can you possibly imagine adoption of Bitcoin would end the US army? The US army existed for hundreds of years on the gold standard. World wars were fought on the gold standard. Exactly, step my step, please explain how adoption of bitcoin would reduce military energy consumption.
- dnautics 5y agoYou are missing the point. When the us was on a gold standard, the army was not required to create the dollar's value. Now that the us is on a sovereign credit-based system, the might of the military is an integral part of the dollars value, both in the obvious sense that the military protects sea lanes and in the more subtle sense that government debt and the sustained credit cycle goes in no small chunk to the military.
- arcticbull 5y agoThe army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar.
- dnautics 5y agoI'm sorry, but there is no other way to say this but that you are clueless on this matter.
- arcticbull 5y agoSurely you have some citations.
- quantumBerry 5y agoHappily. "Base demand for dollars is created due to taxation" [1] Which of course completely contradicts: "The (mostly paid for by tax) army has nothing to do with the value of a dollar." [also 1] [1] comment by 'arcticbull' on 'Hacker News'
- arcticbull 5y agoThe army doesn’t enforce taxes, that would be a violation of posse comitatus.
- quantumBerry 5y agoThat's an interesting and totally irrelevant statement that ignores the fact that taxation to pay for the army in your own words creates "base demand for dollars." Change in demand on the supply-demand curve means change in value, or perhaps I'm not up to date on your version of economics.
- arcticbull 5y agoYou misunderstand my point. What the tax money is spent on is irrelevant and doesn’t create the demand. The demand is created by the obligation to pay the taxes and subsequent enforcement of non-payment. The same demand structure exists for instance in Japan without an army. Does that clarify for you?
- 5y ago
- monological 5y agoThat’s not what I said. It’s simple. Bitcoin has value because of proof-of-work which uses a ton of energy. US dollar has value because it’s propped up by the military which uses MORE energy (more so because there is no more gold standard)
- carnitine 5y agoThe US dollar has value because the most productive economy ever to exist demands that all taxes be paid using US dollars. The army is a small part of protecting and enforcing that monopoly.
- imtringued 5y agoYou can say that having a working economy props its currency of choice up but by that logic the dollar and other government currencies are propping up Bitcoin which is dependent on infrastructure of the economies of those nations.