50 ms·

The users and buyers of cryptocurrency sponsor that spending, and find it worthwhile. Who is the government to say otherwise?

smoldesu 4y ago
Normally the government steps in when environmental protections are needed.
piva00 4y ago
The government is the ultimate safeguard for a whole society, where it should be the steward of common-action when individual action can't be trusted on due to a combination of perverse incentives and issues arising from the tragedy of the commons. Without that you have an anarchic lawless society where individualism can flourish and people can exploit whatever they want without regards for the 2nd, 3rd, n-th order impact that an action might cause unto others, because it's invisible or severely hidden to them. Or that they simply don't care about said impact because their personal reward is worth more to them than the benefit of society as a whole.
- squaredot 4y ago
  I wouldn't paint everything in black and white. For what concerns the discussed legislation, I think it would be more correct to legislate about goals and leave everybody free on how to achieve them (when needed).
- afarrell 4y ago
  I want a government which is humble about its ability to declare an activity valueless to society. It would have been vastly arrogant to declare that cryptocurrency is useless in 2012. In 2022 it is… debatable.
forgetfulness 4y ago
The government should step in when the market can't serve the needs of society, in this case it's cryptocurrency enthusiasts and profiteers not paying for the externalities, causing a detriment to society. A carbon tax scheme aimed directly at cryptocurrency could be another solution, but it sounds like something that would be way more work to enforce.
- danuker 4y ago
  > A carbon tax scheme aimed directly at cryptocurrency Why not a carbon tax scheme for everyone, period? This is what I'm asking. Why is cryptocurrency mining banned, while other "profiteers" (oil companies, gas-electric companies and so on) would not be penalized equally? The US has among the highest per-capita carbon emissions. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_rec...
  - afarrell 4y ago
    > why not a carbon tax scheme for everyone Because the world is not fair and a general carbon tax will not get passed.
    - forgetfulness 4y ago
      NYC is not the only city in NY state either, there's lots of sprawl in the rest of the state and punishing car driving that way would be political suicide, besides being a harsh and rushed measure to undo the costly blunder that was planning cities around private vehicle usage. That's discounting a federal carbon tax that would go this deep, because that's certainly not happening.
  - lelag 4y ago
    I would also welcome a global carbon tax levied at the source (on raw fossil fuel) as it would solve a lot of issues but it's just not gonna happen for political reasons. Given that the global carbon tax is unlikely to happen, we might has well take action against proof of work now since it would still be a net benefit for mankind.
  - piva00 4y ago
    Because perfect is the enemy of good. A global carbon tax is my dream as well, that won't ever stop me to defend the government trying to tax incredibly wasteful industries as a step towards that. It's not black-and-white.
iso1631 4y ago
Those users and buyers do no pay for the externalities they produce
Brian_K_White 4y ago
It is exactly the explicit job of the government to say exactly such things. That's who. Not because they are god, because they are how society codifies what it wants and sets policies to achieve it. Cryptocurrency isn't even banned, only proof of work. It's a completely valid thing for a government to set a policy about. Especially now that the experiment has been allowed to run without meddling for many years, and the results are well and truly in. There might be an argument about invalid interference on day one, but not now.
- taolegal 4y ago
  > only proof of work Banning proof of work is tantamount to banning computation, it's silly and infeasible unless you want to start monitoring what people calculate. Which for anyone remotely sane is laughable on its face.
  - Brian_K_White 4y ago
    Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. The purpose of a state-level policy (state as in government not state as in NY) is to have a state-level agregate effect, not to actually care about each microscopic individual instance. If you make a policy that in effect Bitcoin is illegal, that will have a population-scale effect. The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. You didn't say anything they didn't know perfectly well.
    - taolegal 4y ago
      > The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. Why call me juvenile? That's not necessary to make your argument. It's rude too and against the rules. > Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. No it's not, enforcement practicality is the only important issue regarding a law. An unenforceable law is useless.
      - 4y ago
_uhtu 4y ago
The users and buyers of human sex slaves sponsor the human trafficking industry, and find it worthwhile. Who is the government to say otherwise? Oh yeah, that's right, the government SHOULD actually make policies to cut down on negative affects of things that some people want to do. You know, because that's the whole point of government.
- danuker 4y ago
  I agree with cutting negative effects. But I disagree with the unfairness against cryptocurrency. Tax or ban emissions universally, instead.
goodpoint 4y ago
> Who is the government to say otherwise? It's the will of the people and it overrules the will of some cryptobros.
smolder 4y ago
They hope to find it worthwhile, but are mostly disappointed when their money chasing doesn't pan out. Participation in PoW Blockchain stuff is worthwhile for the black market dealers/buyers, hackers, market manipulators, frauds, miners, and a minority of the speculators with good timing, but the overall utility is awful.
mola 4y ago
Will they also sponsor making earth hospitable again? They sponsor a tiny amount of what their activities actually cost. The goverenment, in liberal democracies, are the people elected representatives.

smoldesu 4y ago

Normally the government steps in when environmental protections are needed.

piva00 4y ago

The government is the ultimate safeguard for a whole society, where it should be the steward of common-action when individual action can't be trusted on due to a combination of perverse incentives and issues arising from the tragedy of the commons. Without that you have an anarchic lawless society where individualism can flourish and people can exploit whatever they want without regards for the 2nd, 3rd, n-th order impact that an action might cause unto others, because it's invisible or severely hidden to them. Or that they simply don't care about said impact because their personal reward is worth more to them than the benefit of society as a whole.

squaredot 4y ago
I wouldn't paint everything in black and white. For what concerns the discussed legislation, I think it would be more correct to legislate about goals and leave everybody free on how to achieve them (when needed).
afarrell 4y ago
I want a government which is humble about its ability to declare an activity valueless to society. It would have been vastly arrogant to declare that cryptocurrency is useless in 2012. In 2022 it is… debatable.

forgetfulness 4y ago

The government should step in when the market can't serve the needs of society, in this case it's cryptocurrency enthusiasts and profiteers not paying for the externalities, causing a detriment to society. A carbon tax scheme aimed directly at cryptocurrency could be another solution, but it sounds like something that would be way more work to enforce.

danuker 4y ago
> A carbon tax scheme aimed directly at cryptocurrency Why not a carbon tax scheme for everyone, period? This is what I'm asking. Why is cryptocurrency mining banned, while other "profiteers" (oil companies, gas-electric companies and so on) would not be penalized equally? The US has among the highest per-capita carbon emissions. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_recent_value_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?most_rec...
- afarrell 4y ago
  > why not a carbon tax scheme for everyone Because the world is not fair and a general carbon tax will not get passed.
  - forgetfulness 4y ago
    NYC is not the only city in NY state either, there's lots of sprawl in the rest of the state and punishing car driving that way would be political suicide, besides being a harsh and rushed measure to undo the costly blunder that was planning cities around private vehicle usage. That's discounting a federal carbon tax that would go this deep, because that's certainly not happening.
- lelag 4y ago
  I would also welcome a global carbon tax levied at the source (on raw fossil fuel) as it would solve a lot of issues but it's just not gonna happen for political reasons. Given that the global carbon tax is unlikely to happen, we might has well take action against proof of work now since it would still be a net benefit for mankind.
- piva00 4y ago
  Because perfect is the enemy of good. A global carbon tax is my dream as well, that won't ever stop me to defend the government trying to tax incredibly wasteful industries as a step towards that. It's not black-and-white.

iso1631 4y ago

Those users and buyers do no pay for the externalities they produce

Brian_K_White 4y ago

It is exactly the explicit job of the government to say exactly such things. That's who. Not because they are god, because they are how society codifies what it wants and sets policies to achieve it. Cryptocurrency isn't even banned, only proof of work. It's a completely valid thing for a government to set a policy about. Especially now that the experiment has been allowed to run without meddling for many years, and the results are well and truly in. There might be an argument about invalid interference on day one, but not now.

taolegal 4y ago
> only proof of work Banning proof of work is tantamount to banning computation, it's silly and infeasible unless you want to start monitoring what people calculate. Which for anyone remotely sane is laughable on its face.
- Brian_K_White 4y ago
  Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. The purpose of a state-level policy (state as in government not state as in NY) is to have a state-level agregate effect, not to actually care about each microscopic individual instance. If you make a policy that in effect Bitcoin is illegal, that will have a population-scale effect. The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. You didn't say anything they didn't know perfectly well.
  - taolegal 4y ago
    > The fact that you can make an argument that 'it's just computation no different from any other computation' is ignorant of the point and kind of jeuvenile. Why call me juvenile? That's not necessary to make your argument. It's rude too and against the rules. > Enforcement practicality is a separate issue. No it's not, enforcement practicality is the only important issue regarding a law. An unenforceable law is useless.
    - 4y ago

_uhtu 4y ago

The users and buyers of human sex slaves sponsor the human trafficking industry, and find it worthwhile. Who is the government to say otherwise? Oh yeah, that's right, the government SHOULD actually make policies to cut down on negative affects of things that some people want to do. You know, because that's the whole point of government.

danuker 4y ago
I agree with cutting negative effects. But I disagree with the unfairness against cryptocurrency. Tax or ban emissions universally, instead.

goodpoint 4y ago

> Who is the government to say otherwise? It's the will of the people and it overrules the will of some cryptobros.

smolder 4y ago

They hope to find it worthwhile, but are mostly disappointed when their money chasing doesn't pan out. Participation in PoW Blockchain stuff is worthwhile for the black market dealers/buyers, hackers, market manipulators, frauds, miners, and a minority of the speculators with good timing, but the overall utility is awful.

mola 4y ago

Will they also sponsor making earth hospitable again? They sponsor a tiny amount of what their activities actually cost. The goverenment, in liberal democracies, are the people elected representatives.