31–40 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could, but no one ever seems to do a good job of it.
There are a lot of things no one ever does a good job of, but that doesn't make them not useful, nor does it mean that they wouldn't by more useful if they did a better-but-still-not-good job of it. Bitcoin is at least doing a less-awful job than any previous attempt managed.
> You could, but no one ever seems to do a good job of [making such an argument].
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is certainly true that the social utility of a company is not necessarily proportional to the number of employees, but it's not necessarily proportional to the profits either. A glass repair company that goes around breaking windows could make money without creating net utility. That is what many people see bitcoin as. Now, you can debate and argue about specifics vis-a-vis cryptocurrency, but there's a larger iss…
> Why assume that making money means you are benefiting society, in general? Because when you make money, someone is paying you for a product or service. When someone chooses to pay you for your product or service, they are expressing a preference for that product or service over the money, and vice versa (you express a preference for the money over the product/service). Which means, that when money is exchanged for…
Is there any work being done to make Bitcoin not consume all that energy? It's hard to support when it's so wasteful of a critical resource. Are they trying to go proof of stake?
At this point, that would be impossible. Making even minor changes to the Bitcoin protocol effectively requires the consent of miners, as they're responsible for minting blocks. There's no way that entrenched mining interests would agree to a protocol change that cut them out of the picture.
Is there any work being done to make Bitcoin not consume all that energy? It's hard to support when it's so wasteful of a critical resource. Are they trying to go proof of stake?
I'm not familiar with "proof of stake", how does that make mining less wasteful in terms of resources?
>Mr. Recny asked why an enterprise that required only a few people to run it should be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 500. Why should an enterprise that requires only about 500 people to run it be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 2,000? and other such logic from "the only justified subsidy is my subsidy" camp. >The concerns are part of a broa…
On the micro level the issue often stems from municipal power contracts. Some towns pre purchse their expected power needs collectively to lower cumulative costs. Bitcoin miners can upset this balance and drive up costs per kWh across the whole town, making them unpopular locally.
Is there any work being done to make Bitcoin not consume all that energy? It's hard to support when it's so wasteful of a critical resource. Are they trying to go proof of stake?
It might be technically possible to change the bitcoin protocol, but at this point the politics are insurmountable.
>Mr. Recny asked why an enterprise that required only a few people to run it should be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 500. Why should an enterprise that requires only about 500 people to run it be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 2,000? and other such logic from "the only justified subsidy is my subsidy" camp. >The concerns are part of a broa…
The real irony here is that the Bitcoin/Ethereum miners are setting up hardware which runs software designed to maximize inefficiency for the sake of maintaining a system designed for money laundering and tax evasion. Rather than use their equipment for work that's useful to humanity like Folding@Home or BOINC these mining operations are running what amounts to a foundry of space heaters trying to compute a lottery n…
>Mr. Recny asked why an enterprise that required only a few people to run it should be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 500. Why should an enterprise that requires only about 500 people to run it be able to drive up the operating costs of a company that employed about 2,000? and other such logic from "the only justified subsidy is my subsidy" camp. >The concerns are part of a broa…
It is certainly true that the social utility of a company is not necessarily proportional to the number of employees, but it's not necessarily proportional to the profits either. A glass repair company that goes around breaking windows could make money without creating net utility. That is what many people see bitcoin as. Now, you can debate and argue about specifics vis-a-vis cryptocurrency, but there's a larger iss…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is certainly true that the social utility of a company is not necessarily proportional to the number of employees, but it's not necessarily proportional to the profits either. A glass repair company that goes around breaking windows could make money without creating net utility. That is what many people see bitcoin as. Now, you can debate and argue about specifics vis-a-vis cryptocurrency, but there's a larger iss…
I don't understand how you can compare violation of property rights (breaking windows) to a completely voluntary system such as Bitcoin, the private production and use of which violates no property rights.