3 ms·

Most of Green's article goes through, except for the answer to the 'climate change' objection (Objection 1). Which is, of course, the most important, and withou

Most of Green's article goes through, except for the answer to the 'climate change' objection (Objection 1). Which is, of course, the most important, and without it, the article as a whole also fails to convince. The problem is in this passage (mine the emphasis): > But the question we should be asking is not whether to be angry about the power consumption of proof-of-work mining. We should be trying to figure out the right path out of this mess. And more concretely, whether there’s a path forward which is more likely to produce *a good outcome* than what is already happening in the industry — namely, that projects are rapidly deploying cleaner technologies to replace proof-of-work. 1. What is a "good outcome?" A good outcome for whom? A great outcome for most species, and most h.sapiens, would be an outright ban, because of the risk spread. Think actuarially: There is always the possibility the crypto industry trends cleaner, but legacy chains will be around for yonks, and bluechip crypto is unlikely to ever move off PoW. This means that, yes, while there is a possibility the industry might trend clean, this is an emormously polite way of saying that the downside risk is both severe and likely. Put another way: if you were selling planet insurance, and you found out they had a lot of PoW crypto going on but were thinking about maybe one day kicking the habit, you'd probably either charge them a fortune or tell them to take a hike, right? Think actuarially. There is also a suggestion that banning mining (or crypto transactions) might just move the action to other jurisdictions. This suggestion seems strained: for while a coordinated international treaty or ban might make time to confect, it's certainly not impossible. Powerful nations might, say, weave a crypto-ban requirement into multilateral trade agreements, like we already do for intellectual property. A ban on crypto mining would likely be even easier to implement and spread, as most nation-states correctly view crypto as a threat to their command&control. I mean, look at Ecuador. Finally, banning crypto would also be something nation-states could take back to their populations as proof of progress on climate change. And they'd even be right. As harsh as it is for a supporter of crypto (and former industry wonk and former whole-coiner) to say this, I'm sincerely beginning to think that the lasting value of this whole Blockchain Thing has been the thought it has provoked. I, for one, would never have had to think so deeply about the nature of value and currency. But you know what? These days, I stick to fiat.

yellowapple 4y ago
> What is a "good outcome?" A good outcome for whom? A great outcome for most species, and most h.sapiens, would be an outright ban, because of the risk spread. This only logically follows if literally all cryptocurrencies are proof-of-work (let alone proof-of-work using a hashing algorithm as energy-intensive as SHA256). This is patently false, and therefore the assertion that an outright ban on the very concept of a cryptocurrency is somehow a net benefit to global society requires more of a supporting argument than "Bitcoin exists and is currently dominant". By your metric, banning only proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be more than sufficient, assuming that such a ban could be enforced... > Powerful nations might, say, weave a crypto-ban requirement into multilateral trade agreements, like we already do for intellectual property. Right, and that totally eliminated (or hell, at least even significantly curtailed) copyright infringement in those jurisdictions, right? If you sincerely believe that, then I've got an NFT of Ecuador to sell you. The cat's out of Pandora's box. You can't "uninvent" peer-to-peer networking, and you can't "uninvent" decentralized ledgers. Nation-states can impose whatever bans they want; unless they're willing to pull a PRC or DPRK and start committing rampant privacy violations for censorship reasons, those bans are toothless.
- undoware 4y ago
  > This only logically follows if literally all cryptocurrencies are proof-of-work (let alone proof-of-work using a hashing algorithm as energy-intensive as SHA256). This is patently false Against this, I argue: - easier/cheaper hashing actually doesn't work -- the yield curve in bitcoin mining is there for a reason, and without it, I doubt PoW would fly. > ...and therefore the assertion that an outright ban on the very concept of a cryptocurrency is somehow a net benefit to global society requires more of a supporting argument than "Bitcoin exists and is currently dominant". Bitcoin is an investment, because it's terrible for small, frequent transactions. (Both in UX and eco terms.) Reductio ad absurdum: If it doesn't remain dominant, then it has no use case, as it's a lousy investment instrument. If the above goes throw for bitcoin, then, a fortirori, the same reductio can also apply to any other PoW coin. And don't get me started on PoS -- it's literally just an MLM you can buy into. A system for centralizing wealth in the hands of whoever already has it. > Right, and that totally eliminated (or hell, at least even significantly curtailed) copyright infringement in those jurisdictions, right? If you sincerely believe that, then I've got an NFT of Ecuador to sell you. It did, though? I remember the nineties well -- relatives would go to China and come back with armfuls of factory-pressed CDs and DVDs. Anything you wanted. Clean and new-in-box. That went away because of IP protection baked into trade agreements. And before you say 'BitTorrent', please remember, the analogy is _factory_ piracy -- because, like nineties piracy, Bitcoin requires mining rigs, and these are large, physical assets, like factories, and this is unlikely to change. What happened to IP after Napster is another thing, and does not invalidate the analogy. A similar virtualization/p2p move is unlikely to work for mining. (But I could always be wrong about this -- I'm open to persuasion, if you can paint me a word-picture of what competitive distributed mining would look like, other than NK Monero malware.) > By your metric, banning only proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be more than sufficient, assuming that such a ban could be enforced... It's not hard -- a helicopter and a FLIR cam would work, as well as cooperation from the energy provider. Choke off the supply of mining, and wait for this to in turn cause transactions to become unwieldy. > The cat's out of Pandora's box. Shoot it, then. > You can't "uninvent" peer-to-peer networking, and you can't "uninvent" decentralized ledgers. Yes, but you can ban the sale of various things. Laws are possible things. > Nation-states can impose whatever bans they want; unless they're willing to pull a PRC or DPRK and start committing rampant privacy violations for censorship reasons, those bans are toothless. Expand/explain. I do not understand the point you attempt to make.

yellowapple 4y ago

> What is a "good outcome?" A good outcome for whom? A great outcome for most species, and most h.sapiens, would be an outright ban, because of the risk spread. This only logically follows if literally all cryptocurrencies are proof-of-work (let alone proof-of-work using a hashing algorithm as energy-intensive as SHA256). This is patently false, and therefore the assertion that an outright ban on the very concept of a cryptocurrency is somehow a net benefit to global society requires more of a supporting argument than "Bitcoin exists and is currently dominant". By your metric, banning only proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be more than sufficient, assuming that such a ban could be enforced... > Powerful nations might, say, weave a crypto-ban requirement into multilateral trade agreements, like we already do for intellectual property. Right, and that totally eliminated (or hell, at least even significantly curtailed) copyright infringement in those jurisdictions, right? If you sincerely believe that, then I've got an NFT of Ecuador to sell you. The cat's out of Pandora's box. You can't "uninvent" peer-to-peer networking, and you can't "uninvent" decentralized ledgers. Nation-states can impose whatever bans they want; unless they're willing to pull a PRC or DPRK and start committing rampant privacy violations for censorship reasons, those bans are toothless.

undoware 4y ago
> This only logically follows if literally all cryptocurrencies are proof-of-work (let alone proof-of-work using a hashing algorithm as energy-intensive as SHA256). This is patently false Against this, I argue: - easier/cheaper hashing actually doesn't work -- the yield curve in bitcoin mining is there for a reason, and without it, I doubt PoW would fly. > ...and therefore the assertion that an outright ban on the very concept of a cryptocurrency is somehow a net benefit to global society requires more of a supporting argument than "Bitcoin exists and is currently dominant". Bitcoin is an investment, because it's terrible for small, frequent transactions. (Both in UX and eco terms.) Reductio ad absurdum: If it doesn't remain dominant, then it has no use case, as it's a lousy investment instrument. If the above goes throw for bitcoin, then, a fortirori, the same reductio can also apply to any other PoW coin. And don't get me started on PoS -- it's literally just an MLM you can buy into. A system for centralizing wealth in the hands of whoever already has it. > Right, and that totally eliminated (or hell, at least even significantly curtailed) copyright infringement in those jurisdictions, right? If you sincerely believe that, then I've got an NFT of Ecuador to sell you. It did, though? I remember the nineties well -- relatives would go to China and come back with armfuls of factory-pressed CDs and DVDs. Anything you wanted. Clean and new-in-box. That went away because of IP protection baked into trade agreements. And before you say 'BitTorrent', please remember, the analogy is _factory_ piracy -- because, like nineties piracy, Bitcoin requires mining rigs, and these are large, physical assets, like factories, and this is unlikely to change. What happened to IP after Napster is another thing, and does not invalidate the analogy. A similar virtualization/p2p move is unlikely to work for mining. (But I could always be wrong about this -- I'm open to persuasion, if you can paint me a word-picture of what competitive distributed mining would look like, other than NK Monero malware.) > By your metric, banning only proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be more than sufficient, assuming that such a ban could be enforced... It's not hard -- a helicopter and a FLIR cam would work, as well as cooperation from the energy provider. Choke off the supply of mining, and wait for this to in turn cause transactions to become unwieldy. > The cat's out of Pandora's box. Shoot it, then. > You can't "uninvent" peer-to-peer networking, and you can't "uninvent" decentralized ledgers. Yes, but you can ban the sale of various things. Laws are possible things. > Nation-states can impose whatever bans they want; unless they're willing to pull a PRC or DPRK and start committing rampant privacy violations for censorship reasons, those bans are toothless. Expand/explain. I do not understand the point you attempt to make.