4 ms·
The "zero-sum" game is sponsored through buying/holding and transaction fees of cryptocurrency. People see value in it, in spite of its costs.
by danuker 4y ago
The "zero-sum" game is sponsored through buying/holding and transaction fees of cryptocurrency. People see value in it, in spite of its costs.
- Closi 4y agoI don’t mean in terms of the value of the coin - I mean that if mining activity increases, power consumption goes up but coins produced remains static. More mining does not provide more coins, only increased fuel burnt per coin. So in total for society, we are burning fuel for nothing in return in aggregate. And let’s be honest - a majority of these coins aren’t going to “citizen crypto miners”, they are typically going to huge scale crypto farms so it’s hardly spreading the wealth.
- danuker 4y agoI got what you meant. But apparently people agree with the >$600k/hour costs [1] it takes to process Bitcoin transactions. This cost is taken from the Bitcoin price (via miners selling) and from transaction fees. Therefore, they must think they are getting at least that much value out of the system. [1] - https://www.crypto51.app/ https://www.crypto51.app/
- Closi 4y agoI’m going to produce a new currency which will be backed by blasting CFCs into the atmosphere. 1 ozone coin is awarded per hour, based on a lottery where you get tickets depending on how much CFC you managed to blast. If people are willing to trade this, it must be valuable and also thus must be worth more than the environmental damage being caused.
- danuker 4y agoAh well, here I argue that CFCs, same as carbon emissions, should be regulated. But it should be fair across all industries. My hypothesis is: special laws betray special interest - here, Big Oil still wants most of the world to pollute, but Big Banks want Bitcoin out of the picture.
- Closi 4y ago> But it should be fair across all industries I think this is at the heart of the difference in opinion - if the free market efficiently determines the best use of resources. My personal view is that it often doesn’t, and that where it doesn’t that the government should sometimes intervene.
- polygamous_bat 4y agoYou very conveniently ignore the cost to society that is caused by the extra pollution. That is an externality that is paid by society and not Bitcoin miners, and thus society has a say about whether miners are allowed to run on fossil fuel in a particular state or not. As it turns out, a lot of things are profitable if you ignore societal costs.
- danuker 4y agoA fair solution would be to tax pollution, without exceptions. The specificity of this law exposes the corrupt interests that have captured the politicians (i.e. Big Oil).
- polygamous_bat 4y agoIf making big bonfires out of old tires and keeping them burning continuously is a new fad, do you ban that by (a) banning old tire bonfires, or (b) taxing tires highly and letting the free market sort it out? Is a government choosing (a) necessarily in the pocket of Big Tire? Or are they also considerate of people who need tires for legitimate purposes, such as driving?
- polygamous_bat 4y agoGamblers have always liked to gamble, however from time to time we have banned certain venues of gambling when we have deemed the "value" it provides those certain gamblers do not exceed the social cost of that particular venue of gambling.
- danuker 4y agoWell then ban it under a gambling argument, not an environmental one.
- woodruffw 4y agoThe gambling and environmental arguments are both variants of the same social externalities argument. It just happens to be the case that PoW schemes produce both negative externalities, rather than just one.