6 ms·

It's funny how every time free market tries to do something new which people consider useful enough to pay money for, somebody will scream for regulators to sav

It's funny how every time free market tries to do something new which people consider useful enough to pay money for, somebody will scream for regulators to save us from it. Usually somebody that didn't build a scrap of honest value in their life. Sure, you're going to say it's a problem of coordination. How about I give you another problem of coordination instead. In this world there are a lot of pretty complicated things, built by smart and learned people. Problem is, there is a supermajority of less smart and/or less learned people that sometimes get to decide what other people can or cannot do. Usually, we can see that societies that let people mind their own business are a lot richer, happier, more civilized and more ethical than societies which tell people what they can do with their time, work and money. But there is still a problem of coordination that a majority of people still haven't internalized this meta-rule, so democracies tend to meddle a lot more than they should. But such is life.

traveler01 5y ago
Agree with that. Cryptocurrencies are showing first hand the stupidity of burocrats. I'm not against regulation, I am though, against the excess of it, which is what's happening right now. People can't even breed without a burocrat saying "tax that, regulate that, forbid that,...". But after Covid became crystal clear, freedom is just a buzz word.
wittycardio 5y ago
No it's actually the opposite, modern societies are the product of an all pervasive state that has the power to curtail bad behaviour. In any modern Western country the most powerful institution is the state. Now of course you need a somewhat de centralized state i.e. not too much power in the hands of a single person but the overall institution has to be very powerful. That is the system that has lead to modern success , not your libertarian fantasy, which actually existed for most of history (extremely weak state penetration in most societies).
- kazen44 5y ago
  also, a free market doesn't count in the externalities of crypto mining. Like the massive waste of electricity and the resulting carbon emissions. The free market doesn't care about the longlevity of the earth, because it is an externality that is hurting the collective instead of the individual participants specifically. The same goes for labour laws, the 8 hour workday, health and food regulation etc.
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    It's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. But anyways, I'm definitely not an anarcho-libertarian - regulations are pretty important, and externalities are a real thing. But accepting for a second the premise that crypto has negative externalities - isn't it kinda stupid to focus on a very small slice of power usage and regulating it literally out of existence, instead of making sure externalities are really included in the price of electricity? Which not only doesn't destroy anything, but, you know, actually solves the problem. Instead of using the problem as a sledgehammer to do something else entirely. This reminds me of people fighting tooth and nail to ban plastic straws. Is plastic pollution a problem? Well, yes. Is banning plastic straws helping it? Sure. Is it even remotely a sane option when considering the cost benefit of all other things you could do to fight plastic pollution? Yeah.
    - hyperman1 5y ago
      You might consider finding another example. The plastic straw banning was not because they are plastic pollution. The problem is the unique shape of the straw getting into the digestive system of animals, and killing them. Plastic just made these things linger longer in the environment. Paper straws have similar problems, except a lot shorter and with a chance to digest before killing the animal.
      - radu_floricica 5y ago
        I'd like sources for that, a cursory google didn't find anything. With my baseline knowledge, I'd say that it's possible to be a marginally worse shape. But plastic as a rule doesn't get eaten - it gets buried. The number of animals that were saved by such regulation is very likely minuscule. The opportunity cost of not tacking anything else related to whatever your goal of choice is - that's not minuscule. Even if you ignore the effort to get there, a legislature can pass only a finite number of regulations per time interval. Context and opportunity costs matter.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Google "Ius primae noctis" for the libertarian fantasy that was replaced by the very strong state.
serjester 5y ago
This is a straw man argument. Crypto miners come with massive negative externalities that they aren’t currently paying for in the form of carbon emissions and higher electricity costs for everyone else. These are quite serious and only getting worse. While I tend to agree with you about the futility of government regulation, it’s hard to see a future where proof of work mining is done sustainably.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Crypto miners are buying electricity from the open market, same as everybody else. If externalities aren't fully included in the price, than it's a problem which is about 0.1% crypto and 99.9% regulatory. I fail to see how focusing on one particular use of electricity you don't like is helping solve the greater problem at all. We can just as well start regulating the use of electric kettles. The only difference is how the public is perceiving that particular use... which is exactly what I said. > While I tend to agree with you about the futility of government regulation, it’s hard to see a future where proof of work mining is done sustainably. Just replace "proof of work mining" with "electricity consumption". And speaking of straw man, focusing on the specific while ignoring the general is a pretty standard debate technique. I can provide sources if you want.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > We can just as well start regulating the use of electric kettles. Electric kettles are already regulated for the sake of consumers themselves, and even so cause direct problems the U.K. power grid has to deal with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      I know. I chose on purpose an example which is (rather unexpectedly) drawing a lot of power and causing issues. And yet we're not talking about banning them - we're simply regulating them to make sure they don't start fires. Which, sure, I'm perfectly ok with doing for crypto mining rigs as well, if they're not already covered by existing legislation.

traveler01 5y ago

Agree with that. Cryptocurrencies are showing first hand the stupidity of burocrats. I'm not against regulation, I am though, against the excess of it, which is what's happening right now. People can't even breed without a burocrat saying "tax that, regulate that, forbid that,...". But after Covid became crystal clear, freedom is just a buzz word.

wittycardio 5y ago

No it's actually the opposite, modern societies are the product of an all pervasive state that has the power to curtail bad behaviour. In any modern Western country the most powerful institution is the state. Now of course you need a somewhat de centralized state i.e. not too much power in the hands of a single person but the overall institution has to be very powerful. That is the system that has lead to modern success , not your libertarian fantasy, which actually existed for most of history (extremely weak state penetration in most societies).

kazen44 5y ago
also, a free market doesn't count in the externalities of crypto mining. Like the massive waste of electricity and the resulting carbon emissions. The free market doesn't care about the longlevity of the earth, because it is an externality that is hurting the collective instead of the individual participants specifically. The same goes for labour laws, the 8 hour workday, health and food regulation etc.
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  It's actually a funny story here. If you look at specifics, most of those things (like 8 hour workday and so on) were getting to be standard practice in the industry before they were regulated. But anyways, I'm definitely not an anarcho-libertarian - regulations are pretty important, and externalities are a real thing. But accepting for a second the premise that crypto has negative externalities - isn't it kinda stupid to focus on a very small slice of power usage and regulating it literally out of existence, instead of making sure externalities are really included in the price of electricity? Which not only doesn't destroy anything, but, you know, actually solves the problem. Instead of using the problem as a sledgehammer to do something else entirely. This reminds me of people fighting tooth and nail to ban plastic straws. Is plastic pollution a problem? Well, yes. Is banning plastic straws helping it? Sure. Is it even remotely a sane option when considering the cost benefit of all other things you could do to fight plastic pollution? Yeah.
  - hyperman1 5y ago
    You might consider finding another example. The plastic straw banning was not because they are plastic pollution. The problem is the unique shape of the straw getting into the digestive system of animals, and killing them. Plastic just made these things linger longer in the environment. Paper straws have similar problems, except a lot shorter and with a chance to digest before killing the animal.
    - radu_floricica 5y ago
      I'd like sources for that, a cursory google didn't find anything. With my baseline knowledge, I'd say that it's possible to be a marginally worse shape. But plastic as a rule doesn't get eaten - it gets buried. The number of animals that were saved by such regulation is very likely minuscule. The opportunity cost of not tacking anything else related to whatever your goal of choice is - that's not minuscule. Even if you ignore the effort to get there, a legislature can pass only a finite number of regulations per time interval. Context and opportunity costs matter.
radu_floricica 5y ago
Google "Ius primae noctis" for the libertarian fantasy that was replaced by the very strong state.

serjester 5y ago

This is a straw man argument. Crypto miners come with massive negative externalities that they aren’t currently paying for in the form of carbon emissions and higher electricity costs for everyone else. These are quite serious and only getting worse. While I tend to agree with you about the futility of government regulation, it’s hard to see a future where proof of work mining is done sustainably.

radu_floricica 5y ago
Crypto miners are buying electricity from the open market, same as everybody else. If externalities aren't fully included in the price, than it's a problem which is about 0.1% crypto and 99.9% regulatory. I fail to see how focusing on one particular use of electricity you don't like is helping solve the greater problem at all. We can just as well start regulating the use of electric kettles. The only difference is how the public is perceiving that particular use... which is exactly what I said. > While I tend to agree with you about the futility of government regulation, it’s hard to see a future where proof of work mining is done sustainably. Just replace "proof of work mining" with "electricity consumption". And speaking of straw man, focusing on the specific while ignoring the general is a pretty standard debate technique. I can provide sources if you want.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > We can just as well start regulating the use of electric kettles. Electric kettles are already regulated for the sake of consumers themselves, and even so cause direct problems the U.K. power grid has to deal with: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_pickup
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    I know. I chose on purpose an example which is (rather unexpectedly) drawing a lot of power and causing issues. And yet we're not talking about banning them - we're simply regulating them to make sure they don't start fires. Which, sure, I'm perfectly ok with doing for crypto mining rigs as well, if they're not already covered by existing legislation.