371–380 of 436 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How much damage is the current financial system responsible for?
Whataboutism has no place in any intelligent discourse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't this entire discussion the definition of whataboutism? We're all focusing on Bitcoin as if killing it would stop global warming or something. There are dozens of different things we could be criticizing when it comes to pollution.
And we do! For many years! Just not on this thread. Global climate change won't be slowed or stopped by a single silver bullet. It will take reduction in many, many areas combined, and many of those are already underway, have been underway for years now. Meanwhile, all of those savings are being offset by wasteful-by-design crypto mining that benefits extraordinarily few people. So yes, in addition to the many, many,…
If we are to waste time talking about polluting classes, let's focus on the big ones first. Naval transport, coal power plants. These should be regulated first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have to include the energy used to power the US military, among other things too. The value of the Dollar is inextricably tied to the threat of force. Bitcoin, on the other hand, offers trust through proof of work, not violence.
So we won't need the US military if the US adopts BTC? Ridiculous.
From seeing this, I fear the HN I once knew and liked is gone. The article isn't accessible, doesn't make sense and is promoting poor discussion. fwiw, I realize this comment doesn't help much either.
I like your comment, it cracked me up!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You clearly haven't actually looked at how the damages are modelled have you? You just in your head inveneted a naive way in which to estimate damages and then argued that that doesn't work. There is a large and robust literature to assess these type of damages (search for Social Cost of Carbon). The methodological challenges are discussed really well in the paper actually. Much of the damages calculated here aren't…
Are there parties that benefit disproportionately by establishing a cost for carbon and the definition thereof? Is this all an altruistic exercise in saving the planet? If so, it sounds very nice. We are lucky to have the concern of such well funded saviors.
It’s hilarious to see the coin bros attack this article. The point here isn’t the number, it’s the scale of waste, which is astronomical. I would rather protect the environment than someone’s ability to buy drugs online. What other legitimate purpose does btc serve right now other than illegal activities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying we shouldn't understand the consequences of what we do? It's useful to know that BTC has major externalities because it allows us to make a rational choice. We could make different choices about all the things you listed, too. Or not! But you seem to be actually arguing for willful blindness, here.
You are misunderstanding the point. Of course, cryptocurrencies have externalities and it is good to quantify them. In that respect, the paper could be useful. The objection is, this paper makes no attempt to analyze and show cryptocurrencies are worth attention any more than other 1000 consumer classes. It just states "crypto has externalities", does not weight them properly in perspective and advocates for "more re…
Can you point out where in the paper the authors leap to "let's regulate" as you put it? There seems to be one small section about regulation, but it doesn't exactly advocate for it: it describes how their pricing research could be used in regulation. It describes challenges in regulating. But it responsibly avoids making moral/policy claims.
This is about the furthest thing from “science”. Just sensationalist propaganda. It’s so far from being even remotely plausible. Maybe 1 BTC is responsible for $0.49 of “damage” if you could ever actually quantify it. Most of this electricity comes from the cheapest source of power, which is hydro.
Did you read the article, or just the abstract? Do you have any specific points to refute or insights to add? Or is your comment not constructive and just sensationalist propaganda? And I ask this as someone who would benefit from BTC going up relative to USD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
BTC proof of work doesnt determine the BTC/$ conversion. the price is non-scientific, highly speculative, and highly volatile.
The causation works in the other direction, due to the difficulty adjustment.