7 ms·

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

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.
Feeble 5y ago
Miners don't operate at loss. This is nothing but free market economics. Electricity is sold on a free market. Miners buy electricity to secure the Bitcoin monetary network because other people value a decentralized monetary network, i.e. Bitcoin, to such a price that it's worth it. Should the market value the network less then less miners will buy electricity for mining. Do you suggest we get rid of the free market for energy?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- __s 5y ago
  Energy is not on a free market in many places If there weren't subsidies (& in fact, a carbon tax), I'd agree with you
  - radu_floricica 5y ago
    Yes. That's a very good point. But when you find something that exposes the flaws in a system, you can try to blame the thing which exposes it, or you can try to fix the system. In this case the situation is not even overly complicated. Subsidies are bad, because: 1. they waste money - everybody is paying the subsidized price, whether they need to or not 2. they utterly fuck up incentives - there's no point to invest in higher energetic efficiency (at any level) when the price is kept artificially low. What problem are subsidies fixing? That some people don't afford paying for electricity. Well, completely novel notion: give them money and let them chose what they spend them for. Once you do that quite a few of them will realize that investing $400 in an AC with inverter is a better investment long term than just paying for more electricity to heat the home. Or a huge array of solutions that subsidies don't make just unlikely - they make plain stupid, as long as electricity is cheap.
    - serjester 5y ago
      Fixing the “system” comes with tangible downsides - subsidies are designed to make local industries competitive on a global scale. Removing them will have a tangible impact on jobs, opportunities and a country’s economy. The alternative is limiting the energy used on something that adds 0 value to a countries broader economy. Long term I’m all for removing subsidies but this is political suicide if done to offset the impact of crypto mining. Crypto mining benefits an exceedingly tiny percentage of people while using massive amounts of power.

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.

Feeble 5y ago

Miners don't operate at loss. This is nothing but free market economics. Electricity is sold on a free market. Miners buy electricity to secure the Bitcoin monetary network because other people value a decentralized monetary network, i.e. Bitcoin, to such a price that it's worth it. Should the market value the network less then less miners will buy electricity for mining. Do you suggest we get rid of the free market for energy?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
__s 5y ago
Energy is not on a free market in many places If there weren't subsidies (& in fact, a carbon tax), I'd agree with you
- radu_floricica 5y ago
  Yes. That's a very good point. But when you find something that exposes the flaws in a system, you can try to blame the thing which exposes it, or you can try to fix the system. In this case the situation is not even overly complicated. Subsidies are bad, because: 1. they waste money - everybody is paying the subsidized price, whether they need to or not 2. they utterly fuck up incentives - there's no point to invest in higher energetic efficiency (at any level) when the price is kept artificially low. What problem are subsidies fixing? That some people don't afford paying for electricity. Well, completely novel notion: give them money and let them chose what they spend them for. Once you do that quite a few of them will realize that investing $400 in an AC with inverter is a better investment long term than just paying for more electricity to heat the home. Or a huge array of solutions that subsidies don't make just unlikely - they make plain stupid, as long as electricity is cheap.
  - serjester 5y ago
    Fixing the “system” comes with tangible downsides - subsidies are designed to make local industries competitive on a global scale. Removing them will have a tangible impact on jobs, opportunities and a country’s economy. The alternative is limiting the energy used on something that adds 0 value to a countries broader economy. Long term I’m all for removing subsidies but this is political suicide if done to offset the impact of crypto mining. Crypto mining benefits an exceedingly tiny percentage of people while using massive amounts of power.