> it's not absurd. If you replace GPU with food, and PoW with population, then you will see that it is not absurd. It is only absurd because of the a priori ass

> it's not absurd. If you replace GPU with food, and PoW with population, then you will see that it is not absurd. It is only absurd because of the a priori assumption that having more PoW is worthless - an assumption you wouldn't make with population. > And i would think that if in the future, demand for PoW crypto grew, it means it must be satisfying a demand (for example, currency collapse). As long as a demand is being satisfied, and paid for by individual's earned money, it should be fine (as opposed to being paid for by somebody else's money - aka, externalization of cost). I'm not even certain how to respond to this. I called out that it's becoming evident that the growing problem with crypto is a collection of people who fundamentally don't understand markets and society. That the understanding is as simplistic as "if someone is willing to pay money for it, then it must be good for society". Which is beyond naieve. And how people need a deeper understanding of what's happening. And the response "countering" my argument is essentially saying I'm wrong because paraphrasing: "If someone is willing to pay for it, it is good for society". And equating GPU production with food production because in this hypothetical they are both things people pay for. I'm not certain we can have a productive discussion. The goal of society isn't to create markets. Markets are a tool society uses to improve life for people. Markets aren't the goal. Making legal murder for hire is not a net positive for society, even though you could create a market place for it and people would pay for it. Arguing something is good because people will pay for it is so beyond flawed that I don't have a way to describe it.