10 ms·

> I'm rather mistrustful of people that are this forthy about being against a new technology. I don't really give a crap about what people do or don't do with

by wlll 4y ago

> I'm rather mistrustful of people that are this forthy about being against a new technology. I don't really give a crap about what people do or don't do with new technology, ultimately what people want to spend their time and money on is up to them. However, "Crypto" is different. If all it was was just the unbelievably irritating crypto bros rug pulling, ponzi scheming, wash trading, ugly NFT shilling and hacking all the while claiming to be at the spearhead of a solution to pretty much every human problem in existence then so be it. I would be capable of ignoring it. I would read a different article, do some work or go for a walk, ignored, done. But "Crypto" (specifically the energy intensive kind) has a different problem, and that's that it has /massive/ externalities that it simply ignores, forcing us, the people who want nothing to do with it, to now deal with it, and with the people in the ecosystem that we find so objectionable. We are dealing with the significant fallout from their hobbies. We are in the middle of 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. All things that could be alleviated if "Crypto" and it's so-far intangible benefits were to dissapear. That is why I hate "Crypto", that's why I call people out about it, why I'm "frothy". > Not efficient? Well neither was the Ford model T. Newer generations are getting better. The Model T allowed people to do something that previously hadn't been done before. So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology. If people can point me at some of these things then we can at least start having a discussion about wether it's worth spending an entire country's worth of electricity on it.

bambax 4y ago
This. A 100% this.
basisword 4y ago
>> 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. All of these things are the result of bad governing, not crypto. Maybe banning crypto would help them (I don’t believe that) but banning lots of other things would also help. What we really need is better energy policy, better foreign policy, and better regulation of companies destroying the environment and contributing unnecessarily to climate change. Edit: The vitriol in some of the replies to this is fascinating. Did you all just lose a fortune in the crypto crash or something?
- wlll 4y ago
  I'm "frothy" about my government (who are seemingly incompetent) too, that doesn't mean that crypto in it's realised form isn't also at fault. I mean sure, crypto as a concept isn't doing anyone any harm, but the realised actually running systems that are Eth and BTC sure as hell are. > Maybe banning crypto would help them It seemingly serves no purpose, and yet takes up a huge amount of power, which in it's absence would allow us to phase out a lot of our fossil fuel usage, which could include Russian gas.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thawaya3113 4y ago
  Nothing is crypto’s fault. We get it. It’s not cryptos fault that it’s a terrible currency. Just invest in it. It’s not crypto’s fault that it’s a terrible investment. Why don’t you want a great currency that government doesn’t control? It’s not crypto’s fault that half the money in the ecosystem is stolen. Why isn’t the government helping this anti governmental technology? It’s not crypto’s fault that the vast majority of the coins are scams. It only failed because Citadel and Blackstone attacked it. No, crypto is pure and faultless. And anything that it does wrong is the fault of the government and/or Blackstone and Citadel and/or the Paper Hands.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    People might think this is too bitter or dismissive but it's true. I have seen many many people pointing out the shady dealings and the death spiral nature of Terra on social media like reddit. But they were shouted out with cries of "FUD!". It's a ponzi scheme and if your caught holding the bag, it is always in your interest to continue the scam rather than call out the scammers. That is why crypto "communities" will never acknowledge negative facts.
  - basisword 4y ago
    >> Nothing is crypto’s fault. Try re-reading my comment. I didn't say that.
- 4y ago
PaulHoule 4y ago
It is like a viral infection. Once somebody spends $400,000 on an ugly ape and then found they spent their money for nothing, they will become a permanent enemy of crypto. It’s just a matter of time before you join us (crypto haters) the difference is that some of us knew it was a scam right away and others will have to learn it the hard way.
- danaris 4y ago
  I dunno; from what I’ve seen, that depends on the personality of the person involved. Some people will react the way you say, yes, but others, after spending $400k or whatever for a worthless NFT, or for some combination of “coins”, will double down, unwilling or unable to let themselves see the truth because that would mean they were wrong in a spectacular fashion. So they push for crypto harder than ever, to get other people to come in, prop the system up, keep the value of their purchase up, and validate their worldview.
  - PaulHoule 4y ago
    That is one outcome. A person like that however will get another chance to change their mind. Another possible outcome is that people will pretend the whole thing didn’t happen. (From the viewpoint that it is possible to learn from other people’s mistakes, people are already pretending the tulip bubble, law’s scheme, 1829, 1969, 1999, 2008, etc. didn’t happen. That Charles Dickens, Emily Brontë and the other authors of those awful Victorian novels lost their money in railroad bonds. The difference is railroads go somewhere, Aries don’t.)
- ur-whale 4y ago
  > the difference is that some of us knew it was a scam right away Jeez, you must be a very rich man by now, with all the extensive shorting of crypto this amazing early insight must have allowed you to execute. Congratulations.
  - cesarb 4y ago
    > with all the extensive shorting of crypto this amazing early insight must have allowed you to execute. Those who have these insights usually also know the aphorism "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".
junofan 4y ago
> So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology. Using privacy coins I can donate money to causes I believe in (eg WikiLeaks) without fear of reprisal and with the knowledge that the funds will reach their recipient. If you have a better way, please let me know.
- prepend 4y ago
  This is a good use case for crypto, but it’s ruined by all the speculation and boom/bust. I don’t need $30,000k Bitcoin to support Wikileaks and my blogger. $10 Bitcoin works perfectly for this. But people hype and fraud coins to heights they shouldn’t be and make it useless for actual use. I think Eth is a good idea. I like smart contracts. But Etherium doesn’t need to be $3k and transactions shouldn’t be $10. $1 Eth and $.01 transactions is still perfectly fine for a sustainable system. But that doesn’t make people millions and billions by milking idiots. I think if we had regulators preventing wash and pump and dump then we can just pick dogecoin or whatever and move on to digital cash. Until then, it’s not going to be possible with dogecoin going up 10x and down .1x along with everything else.
  - tromp 4y ago
    > I don’t need $30,000k Bitcoin > Etherium doesn’t need to be $3k The reason they're priced so high is because most of the supply has gone to early adopters (and its creators in case of the 70% premined Ethereum) leaving late adopters in fear of missing out and fighting over crumbs. > we can just pick dogecoin Dogecoin admittedly has higher inflation, but still had early miners getting 50x more reward than current ones. If you want to deter speculation, it makes more sense to just have a fixed reward, i.e. a pure linear emission, that maintains a high inflation for the first few decades.
    - prepend 4y ago
      I understand why the price has gone up but it is completely counterproductive to have such a high and variable price. Currently should be stable and predictable. There’s no need for early adopters to get rich. I just need to buy a pizza without cash.
chalst 4y ago
I don't see any cryptocoins that I regard as a success, but I am watching three that might be a success: 1. Filecoin: It was well-motivated from the start, to provide a cheap way to get counterparties (by default, a multiple of six) to pin content in IPFS. I don't regard it as a proven technology yet, but it's usable as it stands; 2. Brave's BATs: Brave annoys me with its cryptocoin boosterism, but in principle this provides an way for content providers to profit from gaining a readership that doesn't involve nasty ad-tech. I don't think the system provides good enough incentives for users to mint BATS as it stands, but I think that in principle the Brave team have a viable solution to this problem. 3. The Stellar payments infrastructure has a cryptocoin used to grease its wheels. I don't see Stellar's choice to mint their own cryptocoin as principled here (they could have allowed nodes to choose), but using some cryptocoin here is driven by use. None of these coins use Bitcoin / present-day Ethereum style proof of work, so they do not appear to have the negative externalities you deplore.
- jeffrwells 4y ago
  In the case of Brave, genuinely curious: Is there any reason this needs to be on a public blockchain? What are the benefits? Why is this a better solution than Brave keeping points/payments data in their own database?
  - chalst 4y ago
    It could be done via a centralised database. However, Brendan Eich is a cryptocoin enthusiast. He thinks that BAT is more valuable because it can leverage DeFi infrastructure. It also drastically reduces worries about that database's availability, making the job the Brave team has to do easier.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    What if the Taliban downloads and starts using your browser? Do you want to keep their ledgers and start processing payments for them using your centralized DB? The use of crypto here has the same reason as use of crypto almost anywhere else, to sidestep regulations and liabilities. Doesn't matter whether those regulations are there for very good reason.
NikolaNovak 4y ago
Speaking of externalities - climate change is a very real consequence many people choose to go Lalala about. Ridiculously pricey GPU? Now we have something people might notice :D
fartcannon 4y ago
Where are all these crypto bros that everyone seems so upset about?
- noasaservice 4y ago
  They're the ones buying abandoned oil wells and coal power plants and starting them back up for more shitcoin. Of course, the externality is shoved on ALL of us with worsening environment, climate crisis, higher cost of electronics to do *real* work (no, your 10^15 hashes where -1+10^15 are thrown out IS NOT REAL WORK). I hope EVERY shitcoin peddler loses everything.
  - fartcannon 4y ago
    Sounds like a good reason to ban oil and coal eh.
    - polygamous_bat 4y ago
      I agree! Let's start with the most useless "use" first, AKA crypto, and then once we have precedent we move into more and more uses.
      - fartcannon 4y ago
        If we move to renewables, who cares what they do with the energy?
        noasaservice 4y ago
        I dont care what source of energy you're using, to provide for any shitcoin. Shitcoins are climate-destroying ponzi schemes. They're a negative-sum that the world ends poorer with the more they're made/generated/mined.
        fartcannon 4y ago
G3rn0ti 4y ago
> We are dealing with the significant fallout from their hobbies. We are in the middle of 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against Ukraine? That’s crazy. Climate change is a long running issue that started waaay before Bitcoin even was invented. Still projects other than Bitcoin are working hard to implement staking to use much less energy. Inflation is an issue brought on us by Western governments drowning in debt for decades: For wars in Afghanistan and the middle east, unsustainable social security systems, stimulus packages. And Russia … Putin and his supporters have finally come to terms with the fact it lost its super power Status and in a peaceful manner make the most of their vast and empty territory.
- wlll 4y ago
  > Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against Ukraine? That’s crazy. No, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > Climate change is a long running issue that started waaay before Bitcoin even was invented. What's your point here? Climate change has been around for ages so it's OK to blow a load of electricity on something that's not particularly useful? > Still projects other than Bitcoin are working hard to implement staking to use much less energy. Bitcoin isn't though, and Ethereum has been 6 months away for what, more than two years? They may never change. In the mean time it's blasting through a shit-ton of power for little to no actual value. Happy for people to stop burning through that power and pick up their hobby again when the power usage has been sorted out. > Inflation is an issue brought on us by Western governments drowning in debt for decades: For wars in Afghanistan and the middle east, unsustainable social security systems, stimulus packages. Power companies are literally putting their prices up because of a shortage of sources of power. "It's OK if we use all this power because governments are also bad" is kinda ridiculous. > And Russia … Putin and his supporters have finally come to terms with the fact it lost its super power Status and in a peaceful manner make the most of their vast and empty territory. I don't understand what you're trying to say here, that Putin invading Ukraine is making the most if it's vast and empty territory?
fsociety999 4y ago
> All things that could be alleviated if "Crypto" and it's so-far intangible benefits were to dissapear. This is pretty shallow thinking. I’m sure the traditional banking system uses orders of magnitude more energy than crypto, but you don’t hear about that cause the “studies” about crypto energy use are funded by people who benefit from maintaining the status quo. In fact, you will notice most of the studies critical of Bitcoin focus on how much ENERGY it uses as opposed to its fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions. This is likely intentional. Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter probably use more energy than Bitcoin too, and it is debatable how much of what they do actually creates value in the world. The U.S. military is one of the largest polluters in the world, and Congress nearly unanimously gives them hundreds of billions of dollars every year with very little debate or scrutiny or oversight. The waste of natural resources and energy will not disappear just because crypto goes away. If anything, crypto will actually help SOLVE the problem sooner by creating real economic incentives to use cheaper and cleaner energy. Some estimates say that over 60% of Bitcoin mining now uses renewable energy, and it is trending in the right direction [1]. > So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech “Worth doing” is subjective so that’s a non sequitur, but I will give you something blockchains do that is only possible using blockchain tech: they allow control over the supply of money without a central authority. Separation of money and state, if you will. Some may scoff at this idea, but currency debasement has contributed to the collapse of many empires and governments in history [2] so the importance of this invention should not be understated. [1] https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022.04.25-Q1_2022_BMC_Presentation.pdf https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/... I’m aware this study may also be biased in a similar way as the ones mentioned earlier, but it at least includes the methodology and sources. [2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-o...
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  > If anything, crypto will actually help SOLVE the problem sooner by creating real economic incentives to use cheaper and cleaner energy. Do you understand how markets work? What's disincentivizing the current energy users from seeking out cheaper and cleaner energy? Why would we have to invent a new coal-chugging[1] ponzi scheme to kick off that search? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...
pibechorro 4y ago
Crypto proof of work mining is actually one of the most renewable friendly sectors. Its mostly waste hydro, waste gas, etc being sought after. Its not perfect, but that is the trend. You also have to compare it against what its competing against, all those fancy bank buildings with 24.7 lights and ac, the staff to mantain the paper trail (their commutes, etc), the vast security forces and militaries there to secure it (military being the largest polluter), etc. From what I understand, the growth of the network, especially when it piggy backs on layer two networks like the lightning network for btc means 99% of the transactions can operate in a non proof of work method costing little more than the servers used to run a popular website. Its still sooooo early. The tech will evolve and competition is fierce for the best solutions. So long we dont try to regulate it to death and protect the status quo, its going to evolve in ways we are yet to imagine.
- giaour 4y ago
  > the vast security forces and militaries there to secure it (military being the largest polluter) I've seen several comments in this thread comparing BTC's energy consumption to that of the world's militaries; is this a new crypto meme? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we would still need police and the military even if the world only used cryptocurrency. The irreversibility of crypto transactions increases the ROI of crime, so I think we would need more police and larger militaries in that world. Also, non-financial crime and interstate conflict exists.
  - 6510 4y ago
    We can do a proof of crime and a proof of war blockchain and make law enforcement and conflict into tradable assets.
    - giaour 4y ago
      Wouldn't that incentivize people to create crimes that they could then stop to collect their PoliceCoin? Or to stoke short-lived interstate conflict to mine some more WarCoin? But that'll just mean more and more opportunity for PoliceCoin and WarCoin, so maybe it's actually sound monetary policy.
Schroedingersat 4y ago
The model T is also a bizarre example because the negative externalities of the private automobile are so extreme that you are materially worse off now owning a car in a city designed around cars than not owning one in a city designed to minimize their use.
- wlll 4y ago
  Yeah. I left this out for the simplicity of the argument, but something we really didn't have a good idea of at the time (especially because it largely hadn't happened yet, and we might not have been able to measure if it had) was that climate change exists, and cars are a huge part of it. We know that now, but are stuck in a world with cars, we're trying to dig ourselves out of that hole. We know that crypto[1] uses massive abouts of power when we're struggling to move off fossil fuels. We know that now, at the genesis of the crypto. [1] the crypto I care/talk about, the power hungry kind.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Notable is that PoW is a way of polluting outrageously whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy, PoS just transfers it more directly without the indirection via physical capital. Neither of them solve any of the issues they propose to solve.
tejohnso 4y ago
> But "Crypto" (specifically the energy intensive kind) has a different problem, and that's that it has /massive/ externalities that it simply ignores, forcing us, the people who want nothing to do with it, to now deal with it Grossly inefficient personal transportation and industrial farming have massive externalities forcing people who want nothing to do with it to deal with it. That doesn't seem to be a concern that matters to most people. And they're exacerbating the same climate and energy issues. Public blockchain can be powered by renewable energy, using its own value to pay for it, and can harness power in areas where it is not feasible to harness that power for other purposes. Here's a podcast[1] episode with Saifedean Ammous, if you're interested in the value proposition. He claims Bitcoin actually saved his life, so obviously incredibly valuable to him. Lex does a pretty good job at pushing back on his evangelism. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp4U5aH_T6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp4U5aH_T6A
- FabHK 4y ago
  > Grossly inefficient personal transportation and industrial farming have massive externalities forcing people who want nothing to do with it to deal with it. That doesn't seem to be a concern that matters to most people. But it is a concern, and it is being tackled in many places: gasoline is taxed very heavily. Farm subsidies are being reduced. Just because not all externalities have been fully internalised yet, doesn't mean PoW with its massive externalities is fine.
yufeng66 4y ago
Model T is not efficient by modern standard. But it was the much more efficient compared to horse carriage at the time. Bitcoin is much less efficient than USD now. Very difficult to see why bitcoin would replace USD.
pwpw 4y ago
For what it's worth, you've essentially just described the argument for veganism.
alecst 4y ago
I mean, the Silk Road, like it or not, was a pretty wild innovation enabled by crypto.
bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
> So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology. Facilitating certain types of illegal transactions. Ex, Sanctions evasions for the average Moe, online illicit substance transactions between complete strangers. So I would guess the crux of your statement is actually the “worth doing” part. I respect your position but I respectfully disagree.

by wlll 4y ago

bambax 4y ago

This. A 100% this.

basisword 4y ago

>> 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. All of these things are the result of bad governing, not crypto. Maybe banning crypto would help them (I don’t believe that) but banning lots of other things would also help. What we really need is better energy policy, better foreign policy, and better regulation of companies destroying the environment and contributing unnecessarily to climate change. Edit: The vitriol in some of the replies to this is fascinating. Did you all just lose a fortune in the crypto crash or something?

wlll 4y ago
I'm "frothy" about my government (who are seemingly incompetent) too, that doesn't mean that crypto in it's realised form isn't also at fault. I mean sure, crypto as a concept isn't doing anyone any harm, but the realised actually running systems that are Eth and BTC sure as hell are. > Maybe banning crypto would help them It seemingly serves no purpose, and yet takes up a huge amount of power, which in it's absence would allow us to phase out a lot of our fossil fuel usage, which could include Russian gas.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thawaya3113 4y ago
Nothing is crypto’s fault. We get it. It’s not cryptos fault that it’s a terrible currency. Just invest in it. It’s not crypto’s fault that it’s a terrible investment. Why don’t you want a great currency that government doesn’t control? It’s not crypto’s fault that half the money in the ecosystem is stolen. Why isn’t the government helping this anti governmental technology? It’s not crypto’s fault that the vast majority of the coins are scams. It only failed because Citadel and Blackstone attacked it. No, crypto is pure and faultless. And anything that it does wrong is the fault of the government and/or Blackstone and Citadel and/or the Paper Hands.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  People might think this is too bitter or dismissive but it's true. I have seen many many people pointing out the shady dealings and the death spiral nature of Terra on social media like reddit. But they were shouted out with cries of "FUD!". It's a ponzi scheme and if your caught holding the bag, it is always in your interest to continue the scam rather than call out the scammers. That is why crypto "communities" will never acknowledge negative facts.
- basisword 4y ago
  >> Nothing is crypto’s fault. Try re-reading my comment. I didn't say that.
4y ago

PaulHoule 4y ago

It is like a viral infection. Once somebody spends $400,000 on an ugly ape and then found they spent their money for nothing, they will become a permanent enemy of crypto. It’s just a matter of time before you join us (crypto haters) the difference is that some of us knew it was a scam right away and others will have to learn it the hard way.

danaris 4y ago
I dunno; from what I’ve seen, that depends on the personality of the person involved. Some people will react the way you say, yes, but others, after spending $400k or whatever for a worthless NFT, or for some combination of “coins”, will double down, unwilling or unable to let themselves see the truth because that would mean they were wrong in a spectacular fashion. So they push for crypto harder than ever, to get other people to come in, prop the system up, keep the value of their purchase up, and validate their worldview.
- PaulHoule 4y ago
  That is one outcome. A person like that however will get another chance to change their mind. Another possible outcome is that people will pretend the whole thing didn’t happen. (From the viewpoint that it is possible to learn from other people’s mistakes, people are already pretending the tulip bubble, law’s scheme, 1829, 1969, 1999, 2008, etc. didn’t happen. That Charles Dickens, Emily Brontë and the other authors of those awful Victorian novels lost their money in railroad bonds. The difference is railroads go somewhere, Aries don’t.)
ur-whale 4y ago
> the difference is that some of us knew it was a scam right away Jeez, you must be a very rich man by now, with all the extensive shorting of crypto this amazing early insight must have allowed you to execute. Congratulations.
- cesarb 4y ago
  > with all the extensive shorting of crypto this amazing early insight must have allowed you to execute. Those who have these insights usually also know the aphorism "markets can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent".

junofan 4y ago

> So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology. Using privacy coins I can donate money to causes I believe in (eg WikiLeaks) without fear of reprisal and with the knowledge that the funds will reach their recipient. If you have a better way, please let me know.

prepend 4y ago
This is a good use case for crypto, but it’s ruined by all the speculation and boom/bust. I don’t need $30,000k Bitcoin to support Wikileaks and my blogger. $10 Bitcoin works perfectly for this. But people hype and fraud coins to heights they shouldn’t be and make it useless for actual use. I think Eth is a good idea. I like smart contracts. But Etherium doesn’t need to be $3k and transactions shouldn’t be $10. $1 Eth and $.01 transactions is still perfectly fine for a sustainable system. But that doesn’t make people millions and billions by milking idiots. I think if we had regulators preventing wash and pump and dump then we can just pick dogecoin or whatever and move on to digital cash. Until then, it’s not going to be possible with dogecoin going up 10x and down .1x along with everything else.
- tromp 4y ago
  > I don’t need $30,000k Bitcoin > Etherium doesn’t need to be $3k The reason they're priced so high is because most of the supply has gone to early adopters (and its creators in case of the 70% premined Ethereum) leaving late adopters in fear of missing out and fighting over crumbs. > we can just pick dogecoin Dogecoin admittedly has higher inflation, but still had early miners getting 50x more reward than current ones. If you want to deter speculation, it makes more sense to just have a fixed reward, i.e. a pure linear emission, that maintains a high inflation for the first few decades.
  - prepend 4y ago
    I understand why the price has gone up but it is completely counterproductive to have such a high and variable price. Currently should be stable and predictable. There’s no need for early adopters to get rich. I just need to buy a pizza without cash.

chalst 4y ago

I don't see any cryptocoins that I regard as a success, but I am watching three that might be a success: 1. Filecoin: It was well-motivated from the start, to provide a cheap way to get counterparties (by default, a multiple of six) to pin content in IPFS. I don't regard it as a proven technology yet, but it's usable as it stands; 2. Brave's BATs: Brave annoys me with its cryptocoin boosterism, but in principle this provides an way for content providers to profit from gaining a readership that doesn't involve nasty ad-tech. I don't think the system provides good enough incentives for users to mint BATS as it stands, but I think that in principle the Brave team have a viable solution to this problem. 3. The Stellar payments infrastructure has a cryptocoin used to grease its wheels. I don't see Stellar's choice to mint their own cryptocoin as principled here (they could have allowed nodes to choose), but using some cryptocoin here is driven by use. None of these coins use Bitcoin / present-day Ethereum style proof of work, so they do not appear to have the negative externalities you deplore.

jeffrwells 4y ago
In the case of Brave, genuinely curious: Is there any reason this needs to be on a public blockchain? What are the benefits? Why is this a better solution than Brave keeping points/payments data in their own database?
- chalst 4y ago
  It could be done via a centralised database. However, Brendan Eich is a cryptocoin enthusiast. He thinks that BAT is more valuable because it can leverage DeFi infrastructure. It also drastically reduces worries about that database's availability, making the job the Brave team has to do easier.
- polygamous_bat 4y ago
  What if the Taliban downloads and starts using your browser? Do you want to keep their ledgers and start processing payments for them using your centralized DB? The use of crypto here has the same reason as use of crypto almost anywhere else, to sidestep regulations and liabilities. Doesn't matter whether those regulations are there for very good reason.

NikolaNovak 4y ago

Speaking of externalities - climate change is a very real consequence many people choose to go Lalala about. Ridiculously pricey GPU? Now we have something people might notice :D

fartcannon 4y ago

Where are all these crypto bros that everyone seems so upset about?

noasaservice 4y ago
They're the ones buying abandoned oil wells and coal power plants and starting them back up for more shitcoin. Of course, the externality is shoved on ALL of us with worsening environment, climate crisis, higher cost of electronics to do *real* work (no, your 10^15 hashes where -1+10^15 are thrown out IS NOT REAL WORK). I hope EVERY shitcoin peddler loses everything.
- fartcannon 4y ago
  Sounds like a good reason to ban oil and coal eh.
  - polygamous_bat 4y ago
    I agree! Let's start with the most useless "use" first, AKA crypto, and then once we have precedent we move into more and more uses.
    - fartcannon 4y ago
      If we move to renewables, who cares what they do with the energy?
      - noasaservice 4y ago
        I dont care what source of energy you're using, to provide for any shitcoin. Shitcoins are climate-destroying ponzi schemes. They're a negative-sum that the world ends poorer with the more they're made/generated/mined.
        fartcannon 4y ago

G3rn0ti 4y ago

> We are dealing with the significant fallout from their hobbies. We are in the middle of 1) a very serious climate crisis 2) a cost of living crisis where people can't afford energy to cook and heat (in the UK at least) and 3) a war that would likely be brought to a stop sooner if we could phase out Russian gas sooner. Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against Ukraine? That’s crazy. Climate change is a long running issue that started waaay before Bitcoin even was invented. Still projects other than Bitcoin are working hard to implement staking to use much less energy. Inflation is an issue brought on us by Western governments drowning in debt for decades: For wars in Afghanistan and the middle east, unsustainable social security systems, stimulus packages. And Russia … Putin and his supporters have finally come to terms with the fact it lost its super power Status and in a peaceful manner make the most of their vast and empty territory.

wlll 4y ago
> Are you honestly blaming cryptocurrencies for climate change, inflation and Russia‘s war against Ukraine? That’s crazy. No, I don't think you understood what I wrote. > Climate change is a long running issue that started waaay before Bitcoin even was invented. What's your point here? Climate change has been around for ages so it's OK to blow a load of electricity on something that's not particularly useful? > Still projects other than Bitcoin are working hard to implement staking to use much less energy. Bitcoin isn't though, and Ethereum has been 6 months away for what, more than two years? They may never change. In the mean time it's blasting through a shit-ton of power for little to no actual value. Happy for people to stop burning through that power and pick up their hobby again when the power usage has been sorted out. > Inflation is an issue brought on us by Western governments drowning in debt for decades: For wars in Afghanistan and the middle east, unsustainable social security systems, stimulus packages. Power companies are literally putting their prices up because of a shortage of sources of power. "It's OK if we use all this power because governments are also bad" is kinda ridiculous. > And Russia … Putin and his supporters have finally come to terms with the fact it lost its super power Status and in a peaceful manner make the most of their vast and empty territory. I don't understand what you're trying to say here, that Putin invading Ukraine is making the most if it's vast and empty territory?

fsociety999 4y ago

> All things that could be alleviated if "Crypto" and it's so-far intangible benefits were to dissapear. This is pretty shallow thinking. I’m sure the traditional banking system uses orders of magnitude more energy than crypto, but you don’t hear about that cause the “studies” about crypto energy use are funded by people who benefit from maintaining the status quo. In fact, you will notice most of the studies critical of Bitcoin focus on how much ENERGY it uses as opposed to its fossil fuel usage and greenhouse gas emissions. This is likely intentional. Big tech companies like Facebook and Twitter probably use more energy than Bitcoin too, and it is debatable how much of what they do actually creates value in the world. The U.S. military is one of the largest polluters in the world, and Congress nearly unanimously gives them hundreds of billions of dollars every year with very little debate or scrutiny or oversight. The waste of natural resources and energy will not disappear just because crypto goes away. If anything, crypto will actually help SOLVE the problem sooner by creating real economic incentives to use cheaper and cleaner energy. Some estimates say that over 60% of Bitcoin mining now uses renewable energy, and it is trending in the right direction [1]. > So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech “Worth doing” is subjective so that’s a non sequitur, but I will give you something blockchains do that is only possible using blockchain tech: they allow control over the supply of money without a central authority. Separation of money and state, if you will. Some may scoff at this idea, but currency debasement has contributed to the collapse of many empires and governments in history [2] so the importance of this invention should not be understated. [1] https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/2022.04.25-Q1_2022_BMC_Presentation.pdf https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/... I’m aware this study may also be biased in a similar way as the ones mentioned earlier, but it at least includes the methodology and sources. [2] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-of-the-roman-empire/ https://www.visualcapitalist.com/currency-and-the-collapse-o...

polygamous_bat 4y ago
> If anything, crypto will actually help SOLVE the problem sooner by creating real economic incentives to use cheaper and cleaner energy. Do you understand how markets work? What's disincentivizing the current energy users from seeking out cheaper and cleaner energy? Why would we have to invent a new coal-chugging[1] ponzi scheme to kick off that search? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-miners-revive-fossil-fuel-plant-co2-emissions-soared https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/feb/18/bitcoin-m...

pibechorro 4y ago

Crypto proof of work mining is actually one of the most renewable friendly sectors. Its mostly waste hydro, waste gas, etc being sought after. Its not perfect, but that is the trend. You also have to compare it against what its competing against, all those fancy bank buildings with 24.7 lights and ac, the staff to mantain the paper trail (their commutes, etc), the vast security forces and militaries there to secure it (military being the largest polluter), etc. From what I understand, the growth of the network, especially when it piggy backs on layer two networks like the lightning network for btc means 99% of the transactions can operate in a non proof of work method costing little more than the servers used to run a popular website. Its still sooooo early. The tech will evolve and competition is fierce for the best solutions. So long we dont try to regulate it to death and protect the status quo, its going to evolve in ways we are yet to imagine.

giaour 4y ago
> the vast security forces and militaries there to secure it (military being the largest polluter) I've seen several comments in this thread comparing BTC's energy consumption to that of the world's militaries; is this a new crypto meme? I hate to be the one to break this to you, but we would still need police and the military even if the world only used cryptocurrency. The irreversibility of crypto transactions increases the ROI of crime, so I think we would need more police and larger militaries in that world. Also, non-financial crime and interstate conflict exists.
- 6510 4y ago
  We can do a proof of crime and a proof of war blockchain and make law enforcement and conflict into tradable assets.
  - giaour 4y ago
    Wouldn't that incentivize people to create crimes that they could then stop to collect their PoliceCoin? Or to stoke short-lived interstate conflict to mine some more WarCoin? But that'll just mean more and more opportunity for PoliceCoin and WarCoin, so maybe it's actually sound monetary policy.

Schroedingersat 4y ago

The model T is also a bizarre example because the negative externalities of the private automobile are so extreme that you are materially worse off now owning a car in a city designed around cars than not owning one in a city designed to minimize their use.

wlll 4y ago
Yeah. I left this out for the simplicity of the argument, but something we really didn't have a good idea of at the time (especially because it largely hadn't happened yet, and we might not have been able to measure if it had) was that climate change exists, and cars are a huge part of it. We know that now, but are stuck in a world with cars, we're trying to dig ourselves out of that hole. We know that crypto[1] uses massive abouts of power when we're struggling to move off fossil fuels. We know that now, at the genesis of the crypto. [1] the crypto I care/talk about, the power hungry kind.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Notable is that PoW is a way of polluting outrageously whilst transferring wealth to the wealthy, PoS just transfers it more directly without the indirection via physical capital. Neither of them solve any of the issues they propose to solve.

tejohnso 4y ago

> But "Crypto" (specifically the energy intensive kind) has a different problem, and that's that it has /massive/ externalities that it simply ignores, forcing us, the people who want nothing to do with it, to now deal with it Grossly inefficient personal transportation and industrial farming have massive externalities forcing people who want nothing to do with it to deal with it. That doesn't seem to be a concern that matters to most people. And they're exacerbating the same climate and energy issues. Public blockchain can be powered by renewable energy, using its own value to pay for it, and can harness power in areas where it is not feasible to harness that power for other purposes. Here's a podcast[1] episode with Saifedean Ammous, if you're interested in the value proposition. He claims Bitcoin actually saved his life, so obviously incredibly valuable to him. Lex does a pretty good job at pushing back on his evangelism. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp4U5aH_T6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp4U5aH_T6A

FabHK 4y ago
> Grossly inefficient personal transportation and industrial farming have massive externalities forcing people who want nothing to do with it to deal with it. That doesn't seem to be a concern that matters to most people. But it is a concern, and it is being tackled in many places: gasoline is taxed very heavily. Farm subsidies are being reduced. Just because not all externalities have been fully internalised yet, doesn't mean PoW with its massive externalities is fine.

yufeng66 4y ago

Model T is not efficient by modern standard. But it was the much more efficient compared to horse carriage at the time. Bitcoin is much less efficient than USD now. Very difficult to see why bitcoin would replace USD.

pwpw 4y ago

For what it's worth, you've essentially just described the argument for veganism.

alecst 4y ago

I mean, the Silk Road, like it or not, was a pretty wild innovation enabled by crypto.

bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago

> So far no-one has been able to point me at a single thing that public public blockchains do that either is worth doing and is only possible using blockchain tech, or is better (more power efficient, faster) than using pre-existing technology. Facilitating certain types of illegal transactions. Ex, Sanctions evasions for the average Moe, online illicit substance transactions between complete strangers. So I would guess the crux of your statement is actually the “worth doing” part. I respect your position but I respectfully disagree.