7 ms·

Huh? That's not the President's job; how did we get to this point? If the President can ban a specific, commonly used algorithm for arbitrary reasons, then we

Huh? That's not the President's job; how did we get to this point? If the President can ban a specific, commonly used algorithm for arbitrary reasons, then we are in for a wild ride.

nl 4y ago
Read the report: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-202... The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". It's to consider regulation on high-energy usage crypto operations, and then "should these measures prove ineffective at reducing impacts, the Administration should explore executive actions, and Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining." It's unclear why you think this shouldn't be the Administration's role? If it is taking a significant proportion of power across multiple states and affecting power prices and grid stability it seems like it should at least something one branch of the federal government should have an interest in.
- jjulius 4y ago
  >The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said: >... commonly used algorithm... Which is exactly how coins are mined! Which makes OP correct (sort of, they said "President" and not "Congress") because your own quoted comment says: >... Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining.
  - nl 4y ago
    >> >The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". > That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said: It was in their post when I responded and they edited to correct it. The edit window for my post has expired though.
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Which constitutional power gives the president this ability?
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Which constitutional power gives the president this ability? Congress has delegated broad authority to the President with respect to energy, environment and financial services.
    - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
      Congress has delegated the authority for the president to ban a random technology? Citation needed. Honestly, would Congress itself even have that power?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Test0129 4y ago
    Chevron deference which like firearms and several other things is how they attack the constitution while keeping their hands clean. They will probably defer to the EPA, who will make a regulation based on their suggestion. This allows them to bypass congressional oversight at least until someone very rich manages to bring the case in front of the supreme court. Extremely common unfortunately.
  - MeltingAaah 4y ago
    You are aware that a government can make laws and change laws right? And also change the constitution right? Of course it could imply that it needa to go through certain channels but no one should assume that it literally meant 'the president will now say x and now x is the law'.
    - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
      Sure, if the required supermajority wants to change the constitution, go for it. We’re only talking about executive action because congress isn’t interested though.
kasey_junk 4y ago
It’s a clickbait headline that isn’t even backed up by the 2 paragraph puff piece it’s attached to. The actual report recommends development (not even mandatory) of low energy use “digital assets”.
bluescrn 4y ago
The future is increasingly centralised and authoritarian, it seems.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  This specific link does not contribute to that because it is pure speculation with no evidence.
- MeltingAaah 4y ago
  Because why? It's obvious that the money streams are under control of the state. Your sentiment indicate that Bitcoin should be okay because why exactly? The country doesn't want crypto that was and is clear since ever And I also brought this point up for the last 5 years.crypto is solving a problem people like you think they wanna solve without understanding that it's on purpose how it is. It's nothing to be fixed.
  - bluescrn 4y ago
    > "The country doesn't want crypto" Crypto may be wasteful nonsense and no real solution to anything. But that no reason to ban it, when we accept that capitalism allows vast amounts of wasteful behaviour in many ways, so long as people are prepared to pay the market rate for their wastefulness. If a government is elected with an explicit policy of a hard crackdown on wasteful energy use, it would surely have to extend way beyond crypto, and certainly affect those cooling mega-mansions and heating private swimming pools - but potentially even limit the power/performance of gaming hardware, domestic appliances, and power tools, amongst other things. But that's not what's happening here. IMHO, the post-Covid world needs to somehow look past its tribalism and rediscover the importance of freedom in it's many forms, and also look back more critically at the Covid response and related events around the globe. Covid has shown that there's a very high demand from an easily-terrified populace for centralised authoritarian power during a crisis. It has also shown that when that power is exercised, the resistance is likely to be minimal, and crushing that resistance causes little backlash beyond small outbursts of online anger. We now face a perpetual crisis - the 'climate emergency'. And we should all be concerned about attempted solutions imposed by such centralised authoritarian means, and even more concerned about things done claiming to be about the climate, but actually being ideological in nature.
Beltalowda 4y ago
"The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy recommended in a report" is not the same as "the president will [...]". Anyone can recommend or say anything, including The White House. It's still up to congress to vote for it. The President can issue an executive order, but nowhere that I can see in the report does it recommend that (it does not seem to recommend a ban at all).
MeltingAaah 4y ago
You should read up on other algorithm which were not allowed to be exported outside of USA. But just to be clear about your wishi washy argument: It's not arbitrary when they state a reason. And it's not just some algorithm. I'm also not sure what a difference it makes if you do something manually or a computer automatically if it's harming others you should be able to ban it. Like the action of moving your hand very fast into the face of someone else. Or consuming a lot of energy to guess a random text string faster than others. Btw. You should also advocate against Bitcoin. The chance that the climate change from Bitcoin is hurting you more than the benefit of Bitcoin is very high And if you made bank thanks to crypto, feel free to accept that jlyou only took the money you have now from others. One way or the other Bitcoin is garbage. And yes every crypto bro who exchanges crypto back to Fiat is not believing in crypto either.

Huh? That's not the President's job; how did we get to this point? If the President can ban a specific, commonly used algorithm for arbitrary reasons, then we are in for a wild ride.

nl 4y ago

Read the report: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-202... The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". It's to consider regulation on high-energy usage crypto operations, and then "should these measures prove ineffective at reducing impacts, the Administration should explore executive actions, and Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining." It's unclear why you think this shouldn't be the Administration's role? If it is taking a significant proportion of power across multiple states and affecting power prices and grid stability it seems like it should at least something one branch of the federal government should have an interest in.

jjulius 4y ago
>The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said: >... commonly used algorithm... Which is exactly how coins are mined! Which makes OP correct (sort of, they said "President" and not "Congress") because your own quoted comment says: >... Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining.
- nl 4y ago
  >> >The plan isn't "banning bitcoin". > That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said: It was in their post when I responded and they edited to correct it. The edit window for my post has expired though.
NotYourLawyer 4y ago
Which constitutional power gives the president this ability?
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Which constitutional power gives the president this ability? Congress has delegated broad authority to the President with respect to energy, environment and financial services.
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Congress has delegated the authority for the president to ban a random technology? Citation needed. Honestly, would Congress itself even have that power?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Test0129 4y ago
  Chevron deference which like firearms and several other things is how they attack the constitution while keeping their hands clean. They will probably defer to the EPA, who will make a regulation based on their suggestion. This allows them to bypass congressional oversight at least until someone very rich manages to bring the case in front of the supreme court. Extremely common unfortunately.
- MeltingAaah 4y ago
  You are aware that a government can make laws and change laws right? And also change the constitution right? Of course it could imply that it needa to go through certain channels but no one should assume that it literally meant 'the president will now say x and now x is the law'.
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Sure, if the required supermajority wants to change the constitution, go for it. We’re only talking about executive action because congress isn’t interested though.

kasey_junk 4y ago

It’s a clickbait headline that isn’t even backed up by the 2 paragraph puff piece it’s attached to. The actual report recommends development (not even mandatory) of low energy use “digital assets”.

bluescrn 4y ago

The future is increasingly centralised and authoritarian, it seems.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
This specific link does not contribute to that because it is pure speculation with no evidence.
MeltingAaah 4y ago
Because why? It's obvious that the money streams are under control of the state. Your sentiment indicate that Bitcoin should be okay because why exactly? The country doesn't want crypto that was and is clear since ever And I also brought this point up for the last 5 years.crypto is solving a problem people like you think they wanna solve without understanding that it's on purpose how it is. It's nothing to be fixed.
- bluescrn 4y ago
  > "The country doesn't want crypto" Crypto may be wasteful nonsense and no real solution to anything. But that no reason to ban it, when we accept that capitalism allows vast amounts of wasteful behaviour in many ways, so long as people are prepared to pay the market rate for their wastefulness. If a government is elected with an explicit policy of a hard crackdown on wasteful energy use, it would surely have to extend way beyond crypto, and certainly affect those cooling mega-mansions and heating private swimming pools - but potentially even limit the power/performance of gaming hardware, domestic appliances, and power tools, amongst other things. But that's not what's happening here. IMHO, the post-Covid world needs to somehow look past its tribalism and rediscover the importance of freedom in it's many forms, and also look back more critically at the Covid response and related events around the globe. Covid has shown that there's a very high demand from an easily-terrified populace for centralised authoritarian power during a crisis. It has also shown that when that power is exercised, the resistance is likely to be minimal, and crushing that resistance causes little backlash beyond small outbursts of online anger. We now face a perpetual crisis - the 'climate emergency'. And we should all be concerned about attempted solutions imposed by such centralised authoritarian means, and even more concerned about things done claiming to be about the climate, but actually being ideological in nature.

Beltalowda 4y ago

"The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy recommended in a report" is not the same as "the president will [...]". Anyone can recommend or say anything, including The White House. It's still up to congress to vote for it. The President can issue an executive order, but nowhere that I can see in the report does it recommend that (it does not seem to recommend a ban at all).

MeltingAaah 4y ago

You should read up on other algorithm which were not allowed to be exported outside of USA. But just to be clear about your wishi washy argument: It's not arbitrary when they state a reason. And it's not just some algorithm. I'm also not sure what a difference it makes if you do something manually or a computer automatically if it's harming others you should be able to ban it. Like the action of moving your hand very fast into the face of someone else. Or consuming a lot of energy to guess a random text string faster than others. Btw. You should also advocate against Bitcoin. The chance that the climate change from Bitcoin is hurting you more than the benefit of Bitcoin is very high And if you made bank thanks to crypto, feel free to accept that jlyou only took the money you have now from others. One way or the other Bitcoin is garbage. And yes every crypto bro who exchanges crypto back to Fiat is not believing in crypto either.