4 ms·
Obviously this is useful to someone or are we starting the culture of power shaming? Seems like some section of the media found that drugs / money laundering a
by varispeed 3y ago
Obviously this is useful to someone or are we starting the culture of power shaming?
Seems like some section of the media found that drugs / money laundering angle doesn't resonate with people so they try going about power usage.
Sure if you don't use Bitcoin it may appear to you as wasteful, but so someone who doesn't drive may feel about people charging they cars if they could just walk or cycle.
Ultimately, if they pay the bills, then what's the fuss about?
- jrflowers 3y ago> are we starting the culture of power shaming? This is a good point. Once something can be called a culture it becomes invalid and should be shunned, such as with hand washing
- qwytw 3y ago> Ultimately, if they pay the bills, then what's the fuss about? It's massive waste? How would you feel if someone bought 2 billion gallons of gasoline just to burn it in the middle of a desert biggest fire humanity has ever seen?
- everfree 3y agoI would want to make sure their purchase were taxed at a high enough rate to replace that gasoline with renewable energy, on top of the usual sales taxes. If that were the case, I would tell them to go for it, as their purchase would be a net benefit to society. If the energy used by bitcoin mining is irreplaceable, that just means we're not taxing it enough to replace it properly with renewables. The solution is simple, just tax industrial energy use so that it's not underpriced relative to the externalities it creates. Spend that tax revenue on bulking up the grid with renewables. Then let people buy however much they want and do whatever they want with it, at the right price.
- Dylan16807 3y agoBut we know those taxes don't exist right now. That would be a way to fix the problem, but it sounds like you agree that the problem exists and the burning in the thought experiment is a bad thing.
- everfree 3y agoIf we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly. We might as well tell people what they can and can't use wood to build, or what they can and can't use an internet connection to transfer (i.e. net neutrality). If you purchase gasoline, it's not my right to tell you what to do with it, insofar as it doesn't create additional externalities from that point on, like if you pour it in a river or something. You legally own it now, you get to do whatever you want with it. Same with wood, same with internet bandwidth - this is generally how private property should work. The burning in the thought experiment is actually the least bad thing imo. The alternative is to seize property from someone who purchased that property legitimately, which is unacceptable. As a side note, burning gasoline for no reason is pretty close to what billionaires do whenever they fly their private jets. It's a fact of capitalism, and it will exist for as long as capitalism exists.
- dymk 3y ago> If we start telling people what they can and can't use legitimately-purchased energy for, we go down a dangerous path very quickly No, you make the cost of energy take into account the cost of the carbon emissions. That's what a carbon tax is. It's not a dangerous path, it's basic economics.
- everfree 3y agoRight, that’s essentially what I’m advocating for a few replies up. The person I’m discussing it with rejected that premise the sake of argument.
- Dylan16807 3y ago
- dymk 3y agoUtilities are subsidized by the taxpayer. We also don't tax carbon emissions at what they cost to clean up, so bitcoin mining on a grid that uses fossil fuels dirties the planet without paying for its clean up.
- balderdash 3y agoDo you mean the ratepayer?
- dymk 3y agoWhat do you think the venn diagram of ratepayer and taxpayer looks like?
- balderdash 3y agoI was alluding to commercial/industrial users as well - but I guess those are tax payers too!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- varispeed 3y agoDo they not pay tax? Should we look at other entities using energy? For instance, why not look at all the data centres? I am sure the world could live with 90% services shut down. Memes, gossip sites, blogs are non-essential and many more.
- dymk 3y agoThey do not pay (enough) tax, no. Nowhere near what the actual cost of producing that energy is.