8 ms·

People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want, whether it's crypto, high-powered gaming computers, or abstract art. If the environmental co

People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want, whether it's crypto, high-powered gaming computers, or abstract art. If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.

Ygg2 5y ago
> People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? Regardless of any consequences and externalities I may cause. And I should have the right to sell whatever I discover to highest bidder (including terrorist organizations)? It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market.
- throwaway55421 5y ago
  It is completely ludicrous to compare nuclear testing with doing maths on a computer.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? That is not a voluntary interaction. Nuclear reactors pose an uncontrolled risk to all those in their vicinity. Yours is a hyperbolic analogy, and likely just a trope you wheel out whenever you encounter an opponent of your anti-libertarian "you only have the rights I agree you should have" ideology. >>It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market. I've already commented on how the externalities should be addressed. As for the "black market" angle, there is a fundamental difference between designs for weapons of mass destruction, and targeted restrictions on their dissemination, and dragnet controls over all financial interactions, in an attempt to preempt a host of crimes. The former targets a true threat, and takes proportionate measures to mitigate it. The latter rejects the first principles of a free and liberal society, in instituting warrantless mass-surveillance and centralized gatekeeping of practically all private economic interactions, in the name of preempting crime, and in doing so, creates a hyper-centralized power structure that is in itself a massive threat to humanity.
otterley 5y ago
Life doesn’t work that way. We should try to prioritize the use of valuable and finite resources to those things we think are most valuable to society. Usually we leave that prioritization to the free market, but we also sometimes have to take corrective actions to prevent misallocations that would be harmful or destructive to society, the planet, or the human race. There’s a whole encyclopedia of free-market failure modes that’s worth reading up on. For example: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/market-failure/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec...
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Life works however we want it to work. "Life" doesn't mean "my ideology's preferred state of affairs". >>We should try to prioritize the use of valuable and finite resources to those things we think are most valuable to society. No, we shouldn't. People should always be free to decide for themselves how to expend their share of those finite resources. There is nothing inherently more valuable about one non-essential activity over another. If a person wants to spend their resources running high powered gaming machines, that is not inherently more valuable than spending it mining crypto. Your subjective determination that one non-essential activity is more valuable than another is just that: a subjective opinion. It doesn't govern someone else's subjective determination. >>There’s a whole encyclopedia of free-market failure modes that’s worth reading up on I did not advocate an absence of government intervention. I explained how to make such intervention congruent with the values that are stated to be the intervention's motivation: >>If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). >>Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.
  - otterley 5y ago
    We form governments and associations, and have them set rules, in order to accomplish more than we can accomplish separately. This means relinquishing some individual freedom of choice and prioritizing our use of resources. If you disagree with those choices, that’s fine, and you’re free to make your disagreements known and vote accordingly, but living in a society means accepting that you can’t just do whatever you want, everyone else be damned.

Ygg2 5y ago

> People should be free to spend their wealth on whatever they want So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? Regardless of any consequences and externalities I may cause. And I should have the right to sell whatever I discover to highest bidder (including terrorist organizations)? It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market.

throwaway55421 5y ago
It is completely ludicrous to compare nuclear testing with doing maths on a computer.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>So, you're saying I should run my unlicensed nuclear testing facilities? That is not a voluntary interaction. Nuclear reactors pose an uncontrolled risk to all those in their vicinity. Yours is a hyperbolic analogy, and likely just a trope you wheel out whenever you encounter an opponent of your anti-libertarian "you only have the rights I agree you should have" ideology. >>It's a hyperbole, but Bitcoin suffer from both of those: heavy externalities, and interfacing with black market. I've already commented on how the externalities should be addressed. As for the "black market" angle, there is a fundamental difference between designs for weapons of mass destruction, and targeted restrictions on their dissemination, and dragnet controls over all financial interactions, in an attempt to preempt a host of crimes. The former targets a true threat, and takes proportionate measures to mitigate it. The latter rejects the first principles of a free and liberal society, in instituting warrantless mass-surveillance and centralized gatekeeping of practically all private economic interactions, in the name of preempting crime, and in doing so, creates a hyper-centralized power structure that is in itself a massive threat to humanity.

otterley 5y ago

Life doesn’t work that way. We should try to prioritize the use of valuable and finite resources to those things we think are most valuable to society. Usually we leave that prioritization to the free market, but we also sometimes have to take corrective actions to prevent misallocations that would be harmful or destructive to society, the planet, or the human race. There’s a whole encyclopedia of free-market failure modes that’s worth reading up on. For example: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/economics/market-failure/ https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/ec...

CryptoPunk 5y ago
Life works however we want it to work. "Life" doesn't mean "my ideology's preferred state of affairs". >>We should try to prioritize the use of valuable and finite resources to those things we think are most valuable to society. No, we shouldn't. People should always be free to decide for themselves how to expend their share of those finite resources. There is nothing inherently more valuable about one non-essential activity over another. If a person wants to spend their resources running high powered gaming machines, that is not inherently more valuable than spending it mining crypto. Your subjective determination that one non-essential activity is more valuable than another is just that: a subjective opinion. It doesn't govern someone else's subjective determination. >>There’s a whole encyclopedia of free-market failure modes that’s worth reading up on I did not advocate an absence of government intervention. I explained how to make such intervention congruent with the values that are stated to be the intervention's motivation: >>If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). >>Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.
- otterley 5y ago
  We form governments and associations, and have them set rules, in order to accomplish more than we can accomplish separately. This means relinquishing some individual freedom of choice and prioritizing our use of resources. If you disagree with those choices, that’s fine, and you’re free to make your disagreements known and vote accordingly, but living in a society means accepting that you can’t just do whatever you want, everyone else be damned.