3 ms·

By the principle that people should be free to expend their resources on whatever they want, whether it's generating crypto, running high-powered gaming compute

By the principle that people should be free to expend their resources on whatever they want, whether it's generating crypto, running high-powered gaming computers, or displaying abstract art. When someone buys electricity, does it belong to them, or some totalitarian government that micromanages its private citizens actions? If the former, then what peaceful behavior one uses their electricity for should be of no concern to the laws that restrict our behavior. If the environmental costs of crypto mining are genuinely your concern, the best solution is to advocate an agnostic solution, like restricting CO2 generating sources of energy, or energy consumption for ALL non-essentials (e.g. tourism, video games, crypto, etc). Singling out crypto for its environmental costs, and calling for targeted restrictions on it that exempt other non-essential uses of energy, suggests a superficial basis for your position, like a negative emotional association, or dislike of crypto proponents.

shadowgovt 3y ago
That's not really how taxes work. Over the course of the day, I'll buy gas for a car, some art supplies, a few groceries, a pack of cigarettes, and dinner and a beer at a restaurant. The taxes paid on those differ wildly (with the cigarettes and beer definitely taxed with an eye on minimizing consuming of them). Tax is a tool for both revenue generation and behavior shaping; has been for centuries. Nothing totalitarian about it. In this case, the creation of crypto bits is, ostensibly, wealth creation. Of course the government can tax the materials that go into that asymmetrically, much as many states exempt residential natural gas from tax but not commercial.
- ETH_start 3y ago
  If taxes work in a way where it's singling out a behavior that doesn't generate negative externalities, and punishing it to discourage that behavior, then I suggest we change how they work so they no longer do that. But in fact, they don't work that way. Smoking and alcohol consumption is qualitatively different than mining crypto. Due to how much medical expenses are socialized, they generate negative externalities due to the damage they do to health. So-called sin taxes are also discouraging a behavior that we can objectively state is harmful to the person who engages in it. There is no objective basis on which to claim crypto mining is more harmful than any other non-essential behavior. Using taxes to punish it is an inappropriate use of government power based on the prevailing standards in the Free World.
  - shadowgovt 3y ago
    > There is no objective basis on which to claim crypto mining is more harmful than any other non-essential behavior. It generates demand for finite electrical resources that have a net negative externality on the climate. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact-sheet-climate-and-energy-implications-of-crypto-assets-in-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact.... The argument "But people would be using the electricity for something else if not for crypto" is unsupported; given the uniquely mobile and speculative nature of proof-of-work crypto, it is creating an environment to tap gas wells that would otherwise stay shuttered and increase the rate of the climate slide. While it is perhaps no more harmful than any other non-essential behavior, it's the non-essential behavior that's driving demand to burn fossil fuels. You put taxes where human behavior is, not where it isn't.
    - ETH_start 3y ago
      >>It generates demand for finite electrical resources that have a net negative externality on the climate. The expansion of any industry does that. Singling out crypto suggests something else motivating the measure. >>The argument "But people would be using the electricity for something else if not for crypto" is unsupported; given the uniquely mobile and speculative nature of proof-of-work crypto, That argument is not necessary. The point is any non-essential activity that uses electricity has this environmental impact, and said impact could be reduced by taxing CO2 emissions from non-essential activity.

shadowgovt 3y ago

That's not really how taxes work. Over the course of the day, I'll buy gas for a car, some art supplies, a few groceries, a pack of cigarettes, and dinner and a beer at a restaurant. The taxes paid on those differ wildly (with the cigarettes and beer definitely taxed with an eye on minimizing consuming of them). Tax is a tool for both revenue generation and behavior shaping; has been for centuries. Nothing totalitarian about it. In this case, the creation of crypto bits is, ostensibly, wealth creation. Of course the government can tax the materials that go into that asymmetrically, much as many states exempt residential natural gas from tax but not commercial.

ETH_start 3y ago
If taxes work in a way where it's singling out a behavior that doesn't generate negative externalities, and punishing it to discourage that behavior, then I suggest we change how they work so they no longer do that. But in fact, they don't work that way. Smoking and alcohol consumption is qualitatively different than mining crypto. Due to how much medical expenses are socialized, they generate negative externalities due to the damage they do to health. So-called sin taxes are also discouraging a behavior that we can objectively state is harmful to the person who engages in it. There is no objective basis on which to claim crypto mining is more harmful than any other non-essential behavior. Using taxes to punish it is an inappropriate use of government power based on the prevailing standards in the Free World.
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  > There is no objective basis on which to claim crypto mining is more harmful than any other non-essential behavior. It generates demand for finite electrical resources that have a net negative externality on the climate. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact-sheet-climate-and-energy-implications-of-crypto-assets-in-the-united-states/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact.... The argument "But people would be using the electricity for something else if not for crypto" is unsupported; given the uniquely mobile and speculative nature of proof-of-work crypto, it is creating an environment to tap gas wells that would otherwise stay shuttered and increase the rate of the climate slide. While it is perhaps no more harmful than any other non-essential behavior, it's the non-essential behavior that's driving demand to burn fossil fuels. You put taxes where human behavior is, not where it isn't.
  - ETH_start 3y ago
    >>It generates demand for finite electrical resources that have a net negative externality on the climate. The expansion of any industry does that. Singling out crypto suggests something else motivating the measure. >>The argument "But people would be using the electricity for something else if not for crypto" is unsupported; given the uniquely mobile and speculative nature of proof-of-work crypto, That argument is not necessary. The point is any non-essential activity that uses electricity has this environmental impact, and said impact could be reduced by taxing CO2 emissions from non-essential activity.