3 ms·

I 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

I 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 ago
I’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 ago
  Ah 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 ago
You 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 ago
  A 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 ago
    If 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?

Closi 4y ago

I’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 ago
Ah 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 ago

You 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 ago
A 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 ago
  If 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?