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

On anti-crypto toxicity

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

731–734 of 734 posts

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#731

Post by oliwarner »

rvz wrote: post #718
oliwarner wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll tell you that both extremes are incorrect. Okay, I'll bite. What's incorrect at the anti extreme? In other words, what crypto-currency isn't a) burning down our planet and b) disproportionately rewarding early adopters?

> What's incorrect at the anti extreme? In other words, what crypto-currency isn't a) burning down our planet and b) disproportionately rewarding early adopters? It can just take a single example to invalidate that question and Nano [0] perfectly does so. Unlike the others, it is not 'burning down our planet' , was not 'pre-mined' / 'pre-allocated' or ever did an ICO back when it was launched. sorry. Now here's my qu…

You didn't invalidate the question, you answered it.

And that's great. But why is everyone and their dog still using proof of work? Large nations worth of power is being burnt to process all the others.

Why would they go away? Regulation, even bans will only disrupt the price, push wallets offshore. While there's an anonymous currency you can throw around, accept K&R payments through, it's going to be popular with tax cheats and criminals for a very, very long time. See: the effect of regulation on drugs.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#732

Post by pshc »

bertil wrote: post #710
pshc wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t say the energy use of non-proof of work chains is millions of times worse than existing traditional finance and web2 solutions. Probably comparable. There is much energy wasted in the products themselves and knock-on effects. Machine learning for ads and analytics, for example. Banks using thousands of warm bodies to push around excel spreadsheets. Google might build some of their data centers up in Icelan…

> I wouldn’t say the energy use of non-proof of work chains is millions of times worse than existing traditional finance and web2 solutions. Probably comparable. Then you would not know what you are talking about. > Google might build some of their data centers up in Iceland, but that’s not the full picture. No, they have dozens of data centers, on every continent, and all of them are in areas with cheap, carbon-neut…

Okay I have to concede the second point. Clearly I was feeling pretty flippant at the time.

Unsure about the former point.

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#733

Post by rvz »

oliwarner wrote: post #731
rvz wrote: post #718

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What's incorrect at the anti extreme? In other words, what crypto-currency isn't a) burning down our planet and b) disproportionately rewarding early adopters? It can just take a single example to invalidate that question and Nano [0] perfectly does so. Unlike the others, it is not 'burning down our planet' , was not 'pre-mined' / 'pre-allocated' or ever did an ICO back when it was launched. sorry. Now here's my qu…

You didn't invalidate the question, you answered it. And that's great. But why is everyone and their dog still using proof of work? Large nations worth of power is being burnt to process all the others. Why would they go away? Regulation, even bans will only disrupt the price, push wallets offshore. While there's an anonymous currency you can throw around, accept K&R payments through, it's going to be popular with ta…

> But why is everyone and their dog still using proof of work? Large nations worth of power is being burnt to process all the others.

Are you sure that's an argument not to use 'cryptocurrencies' (since you tried to label all of them as 'burning up the planet' which that was debunked) or was that more to do with those using PoW? It's like asking 'Why is everyone and their dog still driving diesel and petrol cars and trucks, with those still emitting tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, despite the existence of greener alternatives?

> Regulation, even bans will only disrupt the price, push wallets offshore. While there's an anonymous currency you can throw around, accept K&R payments through, it's going to be popular with tax cheats and criminals for a very, very long time.

That's the same way of saying that they are not going away 100% guaranteed and there will be lots of regulatory compliance; exactly what I already said. That's why mining PoW cryptocurrencies are banned in countries like China [0] and Kosovo [1]. Instead with regulations, it is going to get a lot harder for tax cheats, criminals, etc to use their privacy coins as the exchanges will delist them to prevent undesirables from converting it to fiat. [2]

[0] https://fortune.com/2021/11/17/china-bitcoin-mining-ban-cryp...

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59879760

[2] https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/03/31/eu-parliament-vot...

Re: On anti-crypto toxicity

#734

Post by rvz »

moistly wrote: post #662
oliwarner wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'll tell you that both extremes are incorrect. Okay, I'll bite. What's incorrect at the anti extreme? In other words, what crypto-currency isn't a) burning down our planet and b) disproportionately rewarding early adopters?

[crickets]

[more crickets]

Exactly. More crickets that are unable to respond to my question(s). Is that why you also haven't responded to my latest question and went on to vent your anger on to the latest crypto post?

Post reply on HN