> This only logically follows if literally all cryptocurrencies are proof-of-work (let alone proof-of-work using a hashing algorithm as energy-intensive as SHA256). This is patently false
Against this, I argue:
- easier/cheaper hashing actually doesn't work -- the yield curve in bitcoin mining is there for a reason, and without it, I doubt PoW would fly.
> ...and therefore the assertion that an outright ban on the very concept of a cryptocurrency is somehow a net benefit to global society requires more of a supporting argument than "Bitcoin exists and is currently dominant".
Bitcoin is an investment, because it's terrible for small, frequent transactions. (Both in UX and eco terms.) Reductio ad absurdum: If it doesn't remain dominant, then it has no use case, as it's a lousy investment instrument. If the above goes throw for bitcoin, then, a fortirori, the same reductio can also apply to any other PoW coin.
And don't get me started on PoS -- it's literally just an MLM you can buy into. A system for centralizing wealth in the hands of whoever already has it.
> Right, and that totally eliminated (or hell, at least even significantly curtailed) copyright infringement in those jurisdictions, right? If you sincerely believe that, then I've got an NFT of Ecuador to sell you.
It did, though? I remember the nineties well -- relatives would go to China and come back with armfuls of factory-pressed CDs and DVDs. Anything you wanted. Clean and new-in-box. That went away because of IP protection baked into trade agreements. And before you say 'BitTorrent', please remember, the analogy is _factory_ piracy -- because, like nineties piracy, Bitcoin requires mining rigs, and these are large, physical assets, like factories, and this is unlikely to change. What happened to IP after Napster is another thing, and does not invalidate the analogy. A similar virtualization/p2p move is unlikely to work for mining. (But I could always be wrong about this -- I'm open to persuasion, if you can paint me a word-picture of what competitive distributed mining would look like, other than NK Monero malware.)
> By your metric, banning only proof-of-work cryptocurrencies would be more than sufficient, assuming that such a ban could be enforced...
It's not hard -- a helicopter and a FLIR cam would work, as well as cooperation from the energy provider. Choke off the supply of mining, and wait for this to in turn cause transactions to become unwieldy.
> The cat's out of Pandora's box.
Shoot it, then.
> You can't "uninvent" peer-to-peer networking, and you can't "uninvent" decentralized ledgers.
Yes, but you can ban the sale of various things. Laws are possible things.
> Nation-states can impose whatever bans they want; unless they're willing to pull a PRC or DPRK and start committing rampant privacy violations for censorship reasons, those bans are toothless.
Expand/explain. I do not understand the point you attempt to make.