Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

blog.dshr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 361 posts

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#301

Post by dorgo »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #164
chroem- wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy. What is this even supposed to mean? Strict state controls on economic activity are more within the realm of authoritarian regimes, rather than democracies.

Cryptocurrencies advertise themselves as democratic, but in reality they're only as democratic as a corporate shareholder vote. Only those with shares can vote, and more shares = more votes. You may view state control on economic activity as authoritarian, but that's a pretty extreme view. I personally think that a democratically elected government should be able to control the economy when necessary, even if I don't…

>Cryptocurrencies advertise themselves as democratic

only in matters of that cryptocurrency.

>more shares = more votes

Yeah, people without shares have no business (and no interest) in decisions concerned with that cryptocurrency.

It's like saying a game community is not democratic because only players of that game can make decisions about the future of the game and the hardcore players (early adapters) get more votes than the newbies.

I think crypto tech is exploring ways to reinvent democracy/society, but cryptocurrencies are not meant to do it (as the name cryptoCURRENCY suggests).

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#302

Post by nolantait »

shkkmo wrote: post #127
nolantait wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A customer relationship is different in that the feedback loop between your wants/desires and the governing body is more immediate. The rules that were arrived at seem to be less about effectiveness than about special interests. Not to say the ideas I was asking everyones opinion on are a panacea but taxation as ideology is not beyond reproach. Are there alternatives that curb the bad incentives and force a better ga…

So... citizenship and rights only for those who can afford it? Or is the voluntariness of the "customer relationship" one way?...in which case you would really just be arguing for a global decrease in immigration restrictions. The fundemental difference between a citizen and a customer is that it's much harder to citizenship status.

Markets are some of the best tools we have at coordinating behavior in a decentralized way. I wouldn't advocate some capitalist wasteland.

For example if we added market dynamics to a wealth tax we could make it viable and fair for all participants. Lets say there is a 7% tax on all assets over 25k USD. You decide the real value of the assets but the rule is they must be on public auction at all times. Most homeowners would price their homes above the market's rate so they are not at risk of being bought out. Large land holders would price close to the market price or below to avoid the tax. Governments could buy up large tracts of land at once without the common problems of putting in the first stake and the next home being worth 3x what it was yesterday. The end result is a truth on assets you couldn't get from central regulation (good luck avoiding taxes when it gets bought by someone else for cheap).

All of these ignore the pragmatics of whether or not people want their homes auctioned 24/7 but the dynamics of the system are better and self regulating from a taxation perspective. That's the thing about these ideas is of course they go against platonist sensibilities that things remain more or less the same forever. The dynamics change so it should be in everyones interest to explore alternatives that don't just assume people will remain as a doscile tax base until we all perish to dust.

To answer you more directly: citizenship as it stands also has a barrier to entry. I'm trying to make the government more reactive, and give people more power to decide what society should spend its money on. I'm not so certain everyone would just vote to stop protecting those around them, we all know someone who needs help.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#303

Post by dorgo »

tehjoker wrote: post #210
chroem- wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fundamentally it's the antithesis to democracy. What is this even supposed to mean? Strict state controls on economic activity are more within the realm of authoritarian regimes, rather than democracies.

Democracies can control the economy deliberately. Democracy without economic control is near anarchy and the democracy is debilitated, subject to the whims of the people that own production.

Governments exist to prevent/fix market failure. The only problem is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_failure

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#304

Post by chroem- »

pessimizer wrote: post #296
chroem- wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Places like the DPRK, Cuba, and Venezuela are especially relevant when discussing cryptocurrency because it's a technology that allows people in those locations to escape economic totalitarianism. What confuses me is that people in democratic countries are calling a tool of democracy "anti-democratic". It's completely illogical.

> What confuses me is that people in democratic countries are calling a tool of democracy "anti-democratic". It's completely illogical. It depends on whether the word "democracy" has any meaning. In a democracy, we get to vote on how economic activity is regulated. Crypto is a tool to avoid democracy.

> In a democracy, we get to vote on how economic activity is regulated. Crypto is a tool to avoid democracy.

Do you consider the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to be a democracy? The people in that country vote overwhelmingly in favor of authoritarian policies there. I believe it's reasonable to argue that true democracy is incompatible with authoritarianism.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#305

Post by dqx »

iszomer wrote: post #272
dqx wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reagan was a former governor whose net worth paled in comparison to Trump's. He was not an oligarch.

> ..The US just elected a game show host president 4 years ago. ^ Was responding to this. He really _was_ an actor prior to becoming governor of California. Actor, media mogul, "game show host", why should it be any different? Even Michael Bloomberg served in politics as mayor of NYC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_filmography

Yes I know. Trump was elected because he was an oligarch, not because of his political experience.

Reagan had (comparatively) none of the wealth and real political experience at the federal level. He was not an oligarch.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#306

Post by rblion »

skinnyasianboi wrote: post #136
rblion wrote: post #76

The carbon footprint is the bottleneck for crypto. How can it scale without accelerating further ecological collapse? New coins will come along with greenwash in their rhetoric but ultimately you have to trust the science. It's funny how everyone trusts the science when it supports their worldview and ignore it when it doesn't.

Science? Cardano published 100+ scientific papers https://iohk.io/en/research/library if you have time check out the ones about Ouroboros (proof of stake)

Out of all the coins, Cardano is my favorite. Glad you mentioned it.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#307

Post by ghostwriter »

ivalm wrote: post #25
jackt89 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will have your money's value stolen from you through inflation. You will be forced to consume. And you will be happy.

Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption, and honestly success of the US lies in the “consumption.” It’s the thing that brought so much convenience and material well-being to our lives. So “consume and be happy” is unironically true. In as much as the entire concept of money is purely intersubjective we should shape it for societal good. Again, you won’t lose real valu…

> Society grows through investment. This comes either through capital inflow or consumption

Society grows through production. People invest their time and effort in the first place, not money. Consumption is the final non-efficient cause of production. The efficient cause is savings, which represent unconsumed goods and values. Consumption is the end of production, a dead end, as far as the productive process is concerned.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#308

Post by caeril »

fleddr wrote: post #261
caeril wrote: post #253

Fundamentally, cryptocurrency is an end-run around the ridiculous and absurd SWIFT sanctions, KYC, and AML regulations that weigh down banks around the world. There's nothing innovative about it beyond this. We've known how to do two-phase transactions for decades, now. We've had Merkle Trees for about the same period of time. The only innovation cryptocurrency offers is that it's decentralized, to avoid the garbage…

That's ridiculous. Most retail and institutional investors in crypto are already KYC. The current value in crypto isn't solely in moving money, there's scarcity (Bitcoin), utility (ether), Defi/staking, NFTs, the metaverse, whatever. Moving money is a benefit, but the least interesting use case of crypto.

> Most retail and institutional investors in crypto are already KYC

Indeed, because they're there for speculation, not value or utility.

> there's scarcity (Bitcoin), utility (ether), Defi/staking, NFTs, the metaverse, whatever.

Ok, I'll grant scarcity, but it's also part of the previously-mentioned end-run around the worst parts of the current fiat system.

Ether offers no utility beyond token scams. NFTs the same, except double.

> Moving money is a benefit, but the least interesting use case of crypto.

Moving money without the IRS/DOJ/FBI/CIA/NSA/Mossad/PLA peeking over your shoulder is literally the killer app for cryptocurrencies. BTC is obviously failing at this particular task for anyone on a KYC exchange, but cash and tumbler markets are still thriving, and there's always Monero and ZCash, as well.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#309

Post by X6S1x6Okd1st »

cwkoss wrote: post #256
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But cryptocurrencies don't appear to need proof of work.

Proof of work has demonstrated security over time. It costs a lot to do so - as soon as Proof of Stake or another system can provide the same level of security assurance, the market will rapidly shift there to capture the benefit without the costs.

I don't think the bitcoin community is capable of making a change that large at this point, other ideological objections that they have against PoS aside.

Another option would be continually adjusting the block reward to not over subsidize mining.

Re: Cryptocurrencies’ Carbon Footprint Underestimated

#310

Post by cwkoss »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #309
cwkoss wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of work has demonstrated security over time. It costs a lot to do so - as soon as Proof of Stake or another system can provide the same level of security assurance, the market will rapidly shift there to capture the benefit without the costs.

I don't think the bitcoin community is capable of making a change that large at this point, other ideological objections that they have against PoS aside. Another option would be continually adjusting the block reward to not over subsidize mining.

Block reward is effectively adjusted via difficulty retargeting every 2 weeks.

The amount issued doesn't change, but the expected value of a number of hashes changes significantly.

Post reply on HN