6 ms·

You could say similar things about nuclear fusion. It’s easy to say this when you don’t actually follow the technology and the people actually building it.

xigoi 5y ago
Nuclear fusion is meant to solve our energy problems, not to make them as bad as possible.
- knorker 5y ago
  Then you've not heard what blockchain apologists say on the issue: That they are stimulating demand, and speeding up the development of renewals. Which is like keeping your tap water running into the sewers at full blast 24/7 and saying you're stimulating the desalination industry. Also sounds like Zorn in Fifth Element, when he's talking about the benefits of destruction. When your argument sounds like one made by a fictional over the top Hitler-inspired absolute evil character, then maybe you should reassess your life choices.
  - AlexCoventry 5y ago
    > Which is like keeping your tap water running into the sewers at full blast 24/7 and saying you're stimulating the desalination industry. It's a bit more sophisticated than that, no? I thought the argument was that renewable energy sources could use crypto mining to monetize power which would otherwise go to waste during periods of low demand.
    - knorker 5y ago
      Meh. It's just the same with extra steps. During periods of low demand we can shut down coal plans (instead they spin up new ones to mine). And even solar is not without guilt as equipment goes end of life. Even if we were to live in a world powered entirely by even production base load such as nuclear we'll still have hydro that can be saved, and even pump storage hydro if there's still left over. There's no getting around it: this argument is still spinning destruction to be construction. And it's clearly a spin that's being done for very direct financial gain. But remember too that when you say "low demand", what you mean is that it sets a price floor on energy. The equilibrium for miners is to continue mining always when the price is lower than their ROI. This means that fluctuations in a cryptocurrency can mean that demand is unmet, if such demand is not able or willing to pay the same as this rentseeking mining is. Concretely: If we were at equilibrium, and we suddenly invent an energy source that would drop energy price by 10x, real prices would still not go down, because economic incentives such that mining would eat up ALL of that potential lowering of price, and we'd be back to the price we started at. All price of energy would be bounded at the lower end by cryptocurrency mining incentives. We'd have rolling blackouts when the currency goes up. Or when gas fees/attestation fees go up, depending on the details. We'd have doubling-to-quadrupling of energy prices like we've had this winter, except triggered by even more causes. So no, I'd say it's the same as what I've said, or worse.
yunohn 5y ago
I love the irony of comparing blockchain (energy burning) enthusiasts to nuclear (energy generating) physicists.
- kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
  Every business needs customers!
knorker 5y ago
It's an interesting comparison. I mean the easy reply is no: Fusion is not a solution in search of a problem. It has a precise defined desired output, and the engineering is being worked on to achieve that output. (E.g.) NFT don't. Smart contracts don't. Even cryptocurrencies don't. If you precisely define what you want from a cryptocurrency, then you'll either end up with something that's better solved centralized (to a larger or lesser degree, but at least control), or you'll end up with something that nobody actually wants. And if you launch today with something nobody actually wants, then you get rich. So who cares if eventually it solves a problem? And there's no incentive to make that happen. The main difference is that blockchains are being launched before any thought has been put into what problems they solve. Because the money is made on the speculation. Solving the problem is incidental. Sure, you could be super cynical and say that fusion, or indeed every single company in the world, is only there to make money, primarily. But they do that by solving (or trying to solve) actual problems. Again on cryptocurrencies: Why do you think I'll have a hard time walking into a bank with duffle bags full of cash? Really think about that question. Really think about the hundreds of years of thought that has gone into it. Do you think the main problem these generations of people were trying to solve was "intransigent bankers"? Do you think the bank doesn't "like" you as a customer if you walk in with duffle bags full of cash without explanation, and that's why it has rules and takes time, and you have to explain yourself? Now cryptocurrencies just treat that as "that's stupid, let's remove all that". Let's say a thief stole your TV. They catch the thief, and a court orders them to repay you. They have the money. They say no. Obviously you want a court order to be able to take their money. A friend of mine was sexually attacked by a guy. The guy was convicted and ordered to pay a fine. He refused. The court ordered his safe deposit box opened, and they took the money. And that's a good thing. > when you don’t actually follow the technology The technology doesn't matter, if problems are misidentified.
- kristofferR 5y ago
  Once you realize that "you" doesn't equal everyone else, you'll stop acting like that. Plenty of people want and use what crypto already offers. Moneygram was a horrible experience for me, for example, I'm really glad my language school accepting crypto payments.
oblio 5y ago
1. Nuclear fusion has a much more solid theoretical base. 2. Bud, if we go tell every cryptocurrency enthusiast that they'll be allowed to invest in it now and get a return on investment in 80+ years[1], crypto will be dead within 24 hours. [1] The first experimental fusion reactor was tested in 1958 and at the rate they're going, 2038 seems like a reasonable date for the first commercial fusion reactor.

xigoi 5y ago

Nuclear fusion is meant to solve our energy problems, not to make them as bad as possible.

knorker 5y ago
Then you've not heard what blockchain apologists say on the issue: That they are stimulating demand, and speeding up the development of renewals. Which is like keeping your tap water running into the sewers at full blast 24/7 and saying you're stimulating the desalination industry. Also sounds like Zorn in Fifth Element, when he's talking about the benefits of destruction. When your argument sounds like one made by a fictional over the top Hitler-inspired absolute evil character, then maybe you should reassess your life choices.
- AlexCoventry 5y ago
  > Which is like keeping your tap water running into the sewers at full blast 24/7 and saying you're stimulating the desalination industry. It's a bit more sophisticated than that, no? I thought the argument was that renewable energy sources could use crypto mining to monetize power which would otherwise go to waste during periods of low demand.
  - knorker 5y ago
    Meh. It's just the same with extra steps. During periods of low demand we can shut down coal plans (instead they spin up new ones to mine). And even solar is not without guilt as equipment goes end of life. Even if we were to live in a world powered entirely by even production base load such as nuclear we'll still have hydro that can be saved, and even pump storage hydro if there's still left over. There's no getting around it: this argument is still spinning destruction to be construction. And it's clearly a spin that's being done for very direct financial gain. But remember too that when you say "low demand", what you mean is that it sets a price floor on energy. The equilibrium for miners is to continue mining always when the price is lower than their ROI. This means that fluctuations in a cryptocurrency can mean that demand is unmet, if such demand is not able or willing to pay the same as this rentseeking mining is. Concretely: If we were at equilibrium, and we suddenly invent an energy source that would drop energy price by 10x, real prices would still not go down, because economic incentives such that mining would eat up ALL of that potential lowering of price, and we'd be back to the price we started at. All price of energy would be bounded at the lower end by cryptocurrency mining incentives. We'd have rolling blackouts when the currency goes up. Or when gas fees/attestation fees go up, depending on the details. We'd have doubling-to-quadrupling of energy prices like we've had this winter, except triggered by even more causes. So no, I'd say it's the same as what I've said, or worse.

yunohn 5y ago

I love the irony of comparing blockchain (energy burning) enthusiasts to nuclear (energy generating) physicists.

kwertyoowiyop 5y ago
Every business needs customers!

knorker 5y ago

It's an interesting comparison. I mean the easy reply is no: Fusion is not a solution in search of a problem. It has a precise defined desired output, and the engineering is being worked on to achieve that output. (E.g.) NFT don't. Smart contracts don't. Even cryptocurrencies don't. If you precisely define what you want from a cryptocurrency, then you'll either end up with something that's better solved centralized (to a larger or lesser degree, but at least control), or you'll end up with something that nobody actually wants. And if you launch today with something nobody actually wants, then you get rich. So who cares if eventually it solves a problem? And there's no incentive to make that happen. The main difference is that blockchains are being launched before any thought has been put into what problems they solve. Because the money is made on the speculation. Solving the problem is incidental. Sure, you could be super cynical and say that fusion, or indeed every single company in the world, is only there to make money, primarily. But they do that by solving (or trying to solve) actual problems. Again on cryptocurrencies: Why do you think I'll have a hard time walking into a bank with duffle bags full of cash? Really think about that question. Really think about the hundreds of years of thought that has gone into it. Do you think the main problem these generations of people were trying to solve was "intransigent bankers"? Do you think the bank doesn't "like" you as a customer if you walk in with duffle bags full of cash without explanation, and that's why it has rules and takes time, and you have to explain yourself? Now cryptocurrencies just treat that as "that's stupid, let's remove all that". Let's say a thief stole your TV. They catch the thief, and a court orders them to repay you. They have the money. They say no. Obviously you want a court order to be able to take their money. A friend of mine was sexually attacked by a guy. The guy was convicted and ordered to pay a fine. He refused. The court ordered his safe deposit box opened, and they took the money. And that's a good thing. > when you don’t actually follow the technology The technology doesn't matter, if problems are misidentified.

kristofferR 5y ago
Once you realize that "you" doesn't equal everyone else, you'll stop acting like that. Plenty of people want and use what crypto already offers. Moneygram was a horrible experience for me, for example, I'm really glad my language school accepting crypto payments.

oblio 5y ago

1. Nuclear fusion has a much more solid theoretical base. 2. Bud, if we go tell every cryptocurrency enthusiast that they'll be allowed to invest in it now and get a return on investment in 80+ years[1], crypto will be dead within 24 hours. [1] The first experimental fusion reactor was tested in 1958 and at the rate they're going, 2038 seems like a reasonable date for the first commercial fusion reactor.