7 ms·

Getting tired of people on their high horses saving the environment by proposing to shut down bitcoin mining. Next time someone says something like this think

Getting tired of people on their high horses saving the environment by proposing to shut down bitcoin mining. Next time someone says something like this think about what would you think if someone suggested: you walk to the store instead of driving (5 miles? No worries, it' s healthy and good for the environment), you can only use 1 gallon of water per day, use daylight not electricity, eat only what you can grow yourself, stop using any type of plastic, computers (and datacenters) use a lot of energy - stop using them, alcohol? total waste of resources to produce and distribute. This could go on. There are reasonably good arguments to be made for a lot of things.

antiverse 4y ago
In terms of tradeoffs, shutting down an energy-parasitic cryptocurrency operation seems like a good move compared to shutting down a lot of other things that have, thus far, greatly benefited our society. I don't think this needs a [citation needed], as it's a pretty objective thing at this point that we've had to exchange some of the planet's resources to say, visit people on another continent or power an entire country or whatever. I think the misalignment here is that the bitcoin mining operation and what one person can do are not at all comparable, and what you're proposing we do would not really do much as the larger scale operations far exceed what even the entire community of HN would be able to accomplish.
- mirceal 4y ago
  My point is not about bitcoin mining. It's about the slippery slope of deciding that X is good and Y is bad. Everyone has a blast until something you want to do gets banned.
  - withinboredom 4y ago
    It isn’t about “good” or “bad” but more about “fair use.” I think the right answer here is “if you want to mine, you need to use x% of alternative energy” so that energy will go somewhere more useful.
    - mirceal 4y ago
      Why? Why is it about fair use? And more importantly: who gets to decide what fair use is?
      - withinboredom 4y ago
        If you walk into my house with a phone charger. Sure go at it. If you walk in with a toaster, oven, and a microwave, maybe you should pay part of the power bill? If an industry is using a large part of a finite resource, that doesn’t really advance humanity all that much, perhaps it shouldn’t get so much of that finite resource. Where that cutoff is, is anyone’s guess, but it should be an option. I’d say the same of any industry using a finite resource. Could there be worse offenders than mining? Certainly, but afaik, they are furthering human-kind. An imaginary currency that can’t be realistically spent like a currency and isn’t even running at planet-wide-scale (aka, 100% of every monetary transaction) yet but using a disproportionate amount of energy … yeah, that should be regulated.
        mirceal 4y ago
        Ngl, lots of nuggets here. First, the argument about charger, oven, etc does not apply. If it's your house and you pay the bills you get yo decide then rules. Same goes for every home owner. > industry is using a large part of a finite resource All resources are finite. We are using large part of oil for example for just driving around. You don't get to decide how the resources are used > that doesn’t really advance humanity all that much That's some pretentious BS and the high horse appears again. Why do you think you get to decide this without a massive restructuring of how ALL resources are managed? What makes you think you have this right? > An imaginary currency I have shocking news for you. All currencies are imaginary. They're made up. They're something people made up. Also, most money are electronic. Did you ever do the math to see how much energy the financial sector is consuming? > isn’t even running at planet-wide-scale (aka, 100% of every monetary transaction) yet It doesn't have to. I can make up my own currency and use copious amounts of energy to mine it. As long as I pay the bill who are you to tell me I cannot invent my own money? > regulated Oh yeah. The answer to everything. Regulation! Setting aside the technicalities how would you prevent me from consuming electricity and paying for it?
  - zaptheimpaler 4y ago
    Realistically, people do decide what's good and what's bad all the time. Individual decisions usually aren't given much weight, but when a majority of people decide one way that should translate to action. The ban on smoking in public places is one example. Crypto has been around for a decade+ now and most people have not seen any value from it. But we will all be affected by energy shortages and higher emissions.
    - mirceal 4y ago
      That's cool. Smoking is still around though and you can do it all day in your home using your resources. I don't mind people/regulators thinking/doing something if there is a though process and procedure that is established vs the pitchfork approach.
      - zaptheimpaler 4y ago
        I'm not sure how you think process and procedure and laws are established in the first place, but its frequently via the public raising pitchforks.
- usrn 4y ago
  If you don't like crypto currency then you should do your best to stop things that make it necessary.
jbluepolarbear 4y ago
This is a really bad analogy. And mining has many, many harmful impacts on the environment over typical consumer product usage.
- mirceal 4y ago
  Hmm. Definitely bad because you said so. Many, many, many impacts! Try quantifying it. This vs the carbon footprint of one individual.
  - batiudrami 4y ago
    People have quantified it. About 0.55% of global energy consumption for almost no meaningful benefit. I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make beyond “don’t tell me what to do” or maybe “but you do other things that cause carbon emissions so how can this be bad?”
    - mirceal 4y ago
      The point is: if I can tell to what to do when it comes to bitcoin I will eventually end up telling you all the things that you can and cannot do. > People have quantified it. About 0.55% of global energy consumption for almost no meaningful benefit. I hate weasel words. Almost, Meaningful. Who gets to decide what is meaningful? Or, if you take the Thanos approach: Most people live a meaningless life and consume a boatload of resources. Should we get rid of them? What's meaningless you ask? It's whatever I decide it is. It has a fluid definition.

antiverse 4y ago

In terms of tradeoffs, shutting down an energy-parasitic cryptocurrency operation seems like a good move compared to shutting down a lot of other things that have, thus far, greatly benefited our society. I don't think this needs a [citation needed], as it's a pretty objective thing at this point that we've had to exchange some of the planet's resources to say, visit people on another continent or power an entire country or whatever. I think the misalignment here is that the bitcoin mining operation and what one person can do are not at all comparable, and what you're proposing we do would not really do much as the larger scale operations far exceed what even the entire community of HN would be able to accomplish.

mirceal 4y ago
My point is not about bitcoin mining. It's about the slippery slope of deciding that X is good and Y is bad. Everyone has a blast until something you want to do gets banned.
- withinboredom 4y ago
  It isn’t about “good” or “bad” but more about “fair use.” I think the right answer here is “if you want to mine, you need to use x% of alternative energy” so that energy will go somewhere more useful.
  - mirceal 4y ago
    Why? Why is it about fair use? And more importantly: who gets to decide what fair use is?
    - withinboredom 4y ago
      If you walk into my house with a phone charger. Sure go at it. If you walk in with a toaster, oven, and a microwave, maybe you should pay part of the power bill? If an industry is using a large part of a finite resource, that doesn’t really advance humanity all that much, perhaps it shouldn’t get so much of that finite resource. Where that cutoff is, is anyone’s guess, but it should be an option. I’d say the same of any industry using a finite resource. Could there be worse offenders than mining? Certainly, but afaik, they are furthering human-kind. An imaginary currency that can’t be realistically spent like a currency and isn’t even running at planet-wide-scale (aka, 100% of every monetary transaction) yet but using a disproportionate amount of energy … yeah, that should be regulated.
      - mirceal 4y ago
        Ngl, lots of nuggets here. First, the argument about charger, oven, etc does not apply. If it's your house and you pay the bills you get yo decide then rules. Same goes for every home owner. > industry is using a large part of a finite resource All resources are finite. We are using large part of oil for example for just driving around. You don't get to decide how the resources are used > that doesn’t really advance humanity all that much That's some pretentious BS and the high horse appears again. Why do you think you get to decide this without a massive restructuring of how ALL resources are managed? What makes you think you have this right? > An imaginary currency I have shocking news for you. All currencies are imaginary. They're made up. They're something people made up. Also, most money are electronic. Did you ever do the math to see how much energy the financial sector is consuming? > isn’t even running at planet-wide-scale (aka, 100% of every monetary transaction) yet It doesn't have to. I can make up my own currency and use copious amounts of energy to mine it. As long as I pay the bill who are you to tell me I cannot invent my own money? > regulated Oh yeah. The answer to everything. Regulation! Setting aside the technicalities how would you prevent me from consuming electricity and paying for it?
- zaptheimpaler 4y ago
  Realistically, people do decide what's good and what's bad all the time. Individual decisions usually aren't given much weight, but when a majority of people decide one way that should translate to action. The ban on smoking in public places is one example. Crypto has been around for a decade+ now and most people have not seen any value from it. But we will all be affected by energy shortages and higher emissions.
  - mirceal 4y ago
    That's cool. Smoking is still around though and you can do it all day in your home using your resources. I don't mind people/regulators thinking/doing something if there is a though process and procedure that is established vs the pitchfork approach.
    - zaptheimpaler 4y ago
      I'm not sure how you think process and procedure and laws are established in the first place, but its frequently via the public raising pitchforks.
usrn 4y ago
If you don't like crypto currency then you should do your best to stop things that make it necessary.

jbluepolarbear 4y ago

This is a really bad analogy. And mining has many, many harmful impacts on the environment over typical consumer product usage.

mirceal 4y ago
Hmm. Definitely bad because you said so. Many, many, many impacts! Try quantifying it. This vs the carbon footprint of one individual.
- batiudrami 4y ago
  People have quantified it. About 0.55% of global energy consumption for almost no meaningful benefit. I don’t really know what point you’re trying to make beyond “don’t tell me what to do” or maybe “but you do other things that cause carbon emissions so how can this be bad?”
  - mirceal 4y ago
    The point is: if I can tell to what to do when it comes to bitcoin I will eventually end up telling you all the things that you can and cannot do. > People have quantified it. About 0.55% of global energy consumption for almost no meaningful benefit. I hate weasel words. Almost, Meaningful. Who gets to decide what is meaningful? Or, if you take the Thanos approach: Most people live a meaningless life and consume a boatload of resources. Should we get rid of them? What's meaningless you ask? It's whatever I decide it is. It has a fluid definition.