Crypto community slams ‘disastrous’ new amendment to big infrastructure bill(techcrunch.com)
techcrunch.com
Crypto community slams ‘disastrous’ new amendment to big infrastructure bill
https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/06/crypto-biden-amendment-infrastructure-bill-proof-of-work/
134 comments
It depends how "work" and "mining" are defined in this context.
In PoS, as in PoW, security comes from computations done by network participants. For example, in Algorand, nodes generate a proof that they ran a lottery with the correct seed. That's still work, is it not? Does it matter that it's more efficient work than the work that is done to maintain the Bitcoin blockchain? Can someone formulate an argument as to why this should be excluded from the definition of "mining"?
Without rigorous technical definitions, the result may just be that PoS networks adopt terminology like Efficient PoW and Efficient Mining.
In PoS, as in PoW, security comes from computations done by network participants. For example, in Algorand, nodes generate a proof that they ran a lottery with the correct seed. That's still work, is it not? Does it matter that it's more efficient work than the work that is done to maintain the Bitcoin blockchain? Can someone formulate an argument as to why this should be excluded from the definition of "mining"?
Without rigorous technical definitions, the result may just be that PoS networks adopt terminology like Efficient PoW and Efficient Mining.
So is it regulatory capture, trying to squeeze out competition?
Agreed but for a slightly different reason. PoW vs PoS is a much more nuanced debate for reasons other than the environmental impact talked about in mainstream circles.
Bitcoin is PoW for many reasons, a fork of bitcoin could switch it to PoS and end the discussion, but its decentralized nature where one hash = one vote is part of the core of its economic policy.
Ethereum and other PoS chains take trade off but advantages from utilizing PoS one that it desires to be a blockchain that can settle contracts on its layer 1.
This Portman-Warner amendment favors PoW chains dissuading competition between the two.
Bitcoin is PoW for many reasons, a fork of bitcoin could switch it to PoS and end the discussion, but its decentralized nature where one hash = one vote is part of the core of its economic policy.
Ethereum and other PoS chains take trade off but advantages from utilizing PoS one that it desires to be a blockchain that can settle contracts on its layer 1.
This Portman-Warner amendment favors PoW chains dissuading competition between the two.
Portman-Warner is not just favoring PoW over PoS, it's favoring PoW over ALL alternatives. It completely shuts down all potential for new solutions to gain adoption in the United States.
Even if you don't like PoS, you still shouldn't like the Portman-Warner amendment.
Even if you don't like PoS, you still shouldn't like the Portman-Warner amendment.
Agreed. There are many subtle and complex trade offs that come between PoW, PoS, and alternative consensus mechanisms. But one thing I can say with confidence is that Rob Portman is in no way qualified to understand, let alone make those decisions.
Then make the very first block PoW, which switches to PoS from there after. I'm sure the bill hasn't been written to take into account any duration and so is merely a binary question.
Agreed
Reading the bills, they are not banning anything. Just changing the reporting requirements. Doesn’t POS supporters want government oversight of the pseudo-decentralised actors required in POS?
Government oversight isn't required at all or even desired in most cases.
Proof of Stake relies almost entirely on the internal game theory of the system and while external influence (such as some level of proof of authority via gov oversight or hybrid PoS/PoW) can be used as a crutch, they open the system up to a new set of vulnerabilities.
Additionally, while the bills are "just" changing the reporting requirements, those new requirements are incredibly vague and whether read in a narrow or a wide sense they impose such a significant reporting requirement that it would be anywhere from very difficult for an individual on their own to legitimately impossible even with unlimited funding and manpower. The reporting requirements would effectively impose KYC reporting on any validator (including full nodes) or software developer involved in a cryptocurrency ecosystem for all users of the ecosystem. This effectively prevents US validators or SW devs from even participating in the ecosystem outside of creating a completely siloed "US only" cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The originally proposed wording is bad, the Warner amendment is worse. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is a reasonable compromise that provides some capacity for tax compliance oversight without burdening the entire ecosystem with reporting requirements that are mutually incompatible with 99% of networks.
Proof of Stake relies almost entirely on the internal game theory of the system and while external influence (such as some level of proof of authority via gov oversight or hybrid PoS/PoW) can be used as a crutch, they open the system up to a new set of vulnerabilities.
Additionally, while the bills are "just" changing the reporting requirements, those new requirements are incredibly vague and whether read in a narrow or a wide sense they impose such a significant reporting requirement that it would be anywhere from very difficult for an individual on their own to legitimately impossible even with unlimited funding and manpower. The reporting requirements would effectively impose KYC reporting on any validator (including full nodes) or software developer involved in a cryptocurrency ecosystem for all users of the ecosystem. This effectively prevents US validators or SW devs from even participating in the ecosystem outside of creating a completely siloed "US only" cryptocurrency ecosystem.
The originally proposed wording is bad, the Warner amendment is worse. The Wyden-Lummis-Toomey amendment is a reasonable compromise that provides some capacity for tax compliance oversight without burdening the entire ecosystem with reporting requirements that are mutually incompatible with 99% of networks.
And here I thought all the value was in a decentralized blockchain that's immune from government interference. /s
This is not a problem for the network, its a problem for americans or residents in america that wish to perform this duty safe from state prosecution or punishment.
When the regulation requirements are literally impossible to meet, you're essentially banning it.
I'm actually a little confused by the text.
(source: https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1423429377459736577)
The exclusion is for "validating distributed ledger transactions through proof of work (mining)" -- is that meant to cover validation by any full Bitcoin node (e.g. random person who wants full control over transactions involving a personal wallet), or adding new transactions to the ledger via mining?
(I guess, this basically comes down to what's meant by "validating through proof of work" -- the actual PoW is provided by the miner, but other full nodes are needed to validate the actual transaction.)
Because to me, either the validators are affected (thereby significantly impacting the overall robustness of the network, which I would hope reduces its trustworthiness and therefore the currency's value as a result, as well as the ability for individuals to control their own wallets), or miners are affected directly.
(source: https://twitter.com/jerrybrito/status/1423429377459736577)
The exclusion is for "validating distributed ledger transactions through proof of work (mining)" -- is that meant to cover validation by any full Bitcoin node (e.g. random person who wants full control over transactions involving a personal wallet), or adding new transactions to the ledger via mining?
(I guess, this basically comes down to what's meant by "validating through proof of work" -- the actual PoW is provided by the miner, but other full nodes are needed to validate the actual transaction.)
Because to me, either the validators are affected (thereby significantly impacting the overall robustness of the network, which I would hope reduces its trustworthiness and therefore the currency's value as a result, as well as the ability for individuals to control their own wallets), or miners are affected directly.
The text is "validating... through proof of work (mining)", which would seem to imply that it only protects miners. It does seem though like the author's of the text are missing a super important distinction, which is that proof of work mining is _not_ intended to be the main method through which blockchain transactions are validated. The participants in the network are all expected to validate the transactions themselves (independent of the miners).
A mistake like this really suggests that the proposed regulation is not well thought out, and that it should probably be revisited after further education and discussion.
Worth saying a million times: the massive uproar in the crypto industry this week is not because we don't want to be regulated. It's because these proposed regulations are:
+ massively over-reaching + proposed at the last minute + attached to a must-pass bill + given very little room for proper discourse
A mistake like this really suggests that the proposed regulation is not well thought out, and that it should probably be revisited after further education and discussion.
Worth saying a million times: the massive uproar in the crypto industry this week is not because we don't want to be regulated. It's because these proposed regulations are:
+ massively over-reaching + proposed at the last minute + attached to a must-pass bill + given very little room for proper discourse
It's also worth stating that crypto is already regulated. If people are avoiding taxes that's already illegal.
This is an attempt to expand surviellance to make revenue collection easier for the state.
Excuse me if I'm not thrilled about the state having even more information about our lives. I pay my taxes to avoid being jailed, but they're never satisfied until they have complete control over society.
This is an attempt to expand surviellance to make revenue collection easier for the state.
Excuse me if I'm not thrilled about the state having even more information about our lives. I pay my taxes to avoid being jailed, but they're never satisfied until they have complete control over society.
Right, that seems to be the consensus read.
I guess my point is that even PoW systems won't be entirely unaffected (albeit not quite to the extent that PoS systems are), since validators are crucial to the integrity of the blockchain.
To attempt to extend the electric car ban analogy: this feels like adding onerous/infeasible reporting requirements to pipeline operators (PoW validators) and power plants (PoS stakers), neither of whom know anything about the end customer refueling at the pump / charger station, but not the oil refineries (PoW miners).
And yes, the reporting requirements would also be in place for the electric utility (PoS validators), which still doesn't know anything about the charger station's customers.
I guess my point is that even PoW systems won't be entirely unaffected (albeit not quite to the extent that PoS systems are), since validators are crucial to the integrity of the blockchain.
To attempt to extend the electric car ban analogy: this feels like adding onerous/infeasible reporting requirements to pipeline operators (PoW validators) and power plants (PoS stakers), neither of whom know anything about the end customer refueling at the pump / charger station, but not the oil refineries (PoW miners).
And yes, the reporting requirements would also be in place for the electric utility (PoS validators), which still doesn't know anything about the charger station's customers.
For the moment believing that this proposed amendment isn't just some tactic related to getting (or not getting) infrastructure legislation done...
For many reasons this regulation would be unenforceable and/or impossible to comply with. How would a miner be able to fill out a 1099?
For many reasons this regulation would be unenforceable and/or impossible to comply with. How would a miner be able to fill out a 1099?
> A mistake like this really suggests that the proposed regulation is not well thought out, and that it should probably be revisited after further education and discussion.
What kind of sarcasm is most appropriate here? A coy shocked face or faux outrage?
What kind of sarcasm is most appropriate here? A coy shocked face or faux outrage?
I felt the same way about the text.
In Bitcoin, it could either be interpreted as exempting both miners and node operators or neither. That is because the Bitcoin node software does both validation and mining, but the economic environment and network topology means typically people running the software will only do one of the two. Very strange turn of events.
In Bitcoin, it could either be interpreted as exempting both miners and node operators or neither. That is because the Bitcoin node software does both validation and mining, but the economic environment and network topology means typically people running the software will only do one of the two. Very strange turn of events.
Perhaps the PoW profiteers are lobbying against PoS?
No politician wrote this themselves, so… yes probably.
Why is crypto even part of an infrastructure bill? If you want to pay for the bridges and stuff just fix all the corporate tax loopholes that add up to more money anyway.
These loopholes have been around for decades with little interest from either side of the political spectrum to address them. They're clearly beneficial. Hence, it's much easier to just drain retail investors who have been very creative at generating wealth and finding investment opportunities lately. I'd say more so than Wall St.
I may be incorrect, but I think there's a section that updates parts of the tax code to pay for it. I think the crypto language got slipped in there.
Why would fixing corporate tax loopholes be part of infrastructure? Seems as arbitrary as taxing crypto. They should really do both.
>tightening tax compliance within the historically under-regulated arena of digital currency
"historically under-regulated" is the most biased way I could imagine to present this information
"historically under-regulated" is the most biased way I could imagine to present this information
The proof-of-work versus proof-of-stake thing is kind of weird. Some people here and elsewhere are saying the gov shouldn't add different reporting requirements to them because the environmental consequences are so different.
I guess you can get around that by targeting both equally. If you're concerned about reporting-- well, just because you're using a technology that technically can be anonymous doesn't mean you're legally entitled to anonymity.
I guess you can get around that by targeting both equally. If you're concerned about reporting-- well, just because you're using a technology that technically can be anonymous doesn't mean you're legally entitled to anonymity.
That’s how it was before the BTC whales got Portman to exclude them
None of the amendments sufficiently clarify the role of mining pools. I.e. the pool does validation, but it also divides up the mined yield. If you regulate pools, this will significantly reduce and centralize the entities with control over distributed ledgers.
Is it possible to for cryptocurrency projects to rename proof-of-stake to something like proof-of-work 2.0 and validators to miners to get around this? Are these terms clearly defined anywhere?
Instead of trying to pass an amendment to the bill just for crypto they should be against passing the entire bill. What hypocrites- they do not care about freedom, only about what is good for their industry.
Also, it is clear that congress could care less about understanding what crypto really is in a deep way. They only care about using power and extracting their rents.
Also, it is clear that congress could care less about understanding what crypto really is in a deep way. They only care about using power and extracting their rents.
It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law.
Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech. If the Wyden/Toomey/Loomis amendment doesn't pass today this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting. This bill, if passed, should be taken to the courts.
Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech. If the Wyden/Toomey/Loomis amendment doesn't pass today this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting. This bill, if passed, should be taken to the courts.
"It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law."
It's actually easy to explain: lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them. Lawmakers don't even read laws, eg, they routinely vote on legislation that is hundreds of pages long that was modified and printed the night before they voted on it.
It's actually easy to explain: lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them. Lawmakers don't even read laws, eg, they routinely vote on legislation that is hundreds of pages long that was modified and printed the night before they voted on it.
> lawmakers don't write laws; lobbyists write laws and lawmakers rubberstamp them
You don’t want generalist lawyers to write laws. You don’t want specialists to write laws and then have generalists debate them, since apparently the current multi-week unfinished legislative process is rubber stamping to you.
You don’t want generalist lawyers to write laws. You don’t want specialists to write laws and then have generalists debate them, since apparently the current multi-week unfinished legislative process is rubber stamping to you.
> ”Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech.”
And also regulated the same way as anything else. If you’re operating as an unlicensed money transmitter, you can’t pretend that it’s legit because your ledgers are printed and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Same applies to “but it’s just code”.
And also regulated the same way as anything else. If you’re operating as an unlicensed money transmitter, you can’t pretend that it’s legit because your ledgers are printed and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Same applies to “but it’s just code”.
Why should the transmission of money require a license?
Because money laundering.
What about it?
See, e.g., https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46486.pdf and https://www.goodwinlaw.com/~/media/Files/Publications/Attorn...
Money transfer fraud also goes all the way back to "steamship agents" in the early 20th century. See, e.g., https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002...
Money transfer fraud also goes all the way back to "steamship agents" in the early 20th century. See, e.g., https://digital.library.temple.edu/digital/collection/p16002...
Agreed, but the current clause in the infrastructure bill is not about regulating unlicensed money transmitters, the wording of the bill is extremely broad and covers everyone who writes any type of software that handles digital assets, whether or not the author of that code is operating anything.
It's basically saying "if you've made a pull request to the bitcoin-core codebase, even just as a bugfix, you may be responsible for providing KYC'd information on all users of Bitcoin and on all Bitcoin transactions, regardless of where they happen or what your relationship to those people is".
Which is why the entire crypto ecosystem is up in arms. This bill is an extreme over-reach and would threaten the viability of essentially all crypto startups in the entire US.
It's basically saying "if you've made a pull request to the bitcoin-core codebase, even just as a bugfix, you may be responsible for providing KYC'd information on all users of Bitcoin and on all Bitcoin transactions, regardless of where they happen or what your relationship to those people is".
Which is why the entire crypto ecosystem is up in arms. This bill is an extreme over-reach and would threaten the viability of essentially all crypto startups in the entire US.
The bill is also about "digital assets" and previously even in-game currency has been ruled as such (for example World of Warcraft gold, Second Life currency to buy land, etc...).
It also may apply to other non-crypto digital money, although that might be the point of the bill, since it would allow the US more easily to chase anyone evading its sanctions (for example: China is creating digital currency, Iran has some ideas too, they could use this to ignore SWIFT and thus ignore sanctions, this bill would allow US to sanction that thing too)
It also may apply to other non-crypto digital money, although that might be the point of the bill, since it would allow the US more easily to chase anyone evading its sanctions (for example: China is creating digital currency, Iran has some ideas too, they could use this to ignore SWIFT and thus ignore sanctions, this bill would allow US to sanction that thing too)
You're suggesting this is an accident. Lawmakers don't write any laws any more, that happens on K-Street by lobbyists. But the same idea applies to whoever is writing these horrific things. We're still living with the DMCA all these years later too.
It’s baffling how people here continue to insist that anybody disagreeing with them must be stupid.
More specifically:
> this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting
The idea that software today isn’t already, and has been from the times when bugs were actual insects, been the subject of (or had to account for) regulation is simply absurd.
As just the most obvious example, the financial sector is heavily regulated, and that includes the software, from KYC rules similar to those now proposed for cryptocurrencies, to endless requirements for documentation and archival or the exact prescription of the algorithm to be used to settle transactions.
The software in your car, plane, phone, or nuclear plant is required to follow a few dozen regulations, ISO standards, and best practice standards elevated to requirements. Every website accepting payments must implement some minimum of consumer and data protection. Your emails should respect the Oxford Dictionary and The New York Times Manual of Style, and the ADA may or may not include some requirements, although I’m not sure how binding they are.
What’s happening here is the collision of reality with two fundamental misunderstandings in the crypto community: first, they considered themselves valiant warriors challenging the FED/$/governments, certain to be immediately targeted by “the establishment” trying to defend its mighty power. Then, they expected to win that fight with superior technology. Or, as seems to be happening here, the idea that “it’s online” and thereby outside the jurisdiction of the law.
What happened was that for a decade or so, “the establishment” reacted with some mixture of mild interest, bemused looks, and just not giving a shit. Then, when cryptocurrencies had proven worthless except for scams, tax evasion, and CO_2 production, they started cutting it down to size, with maybe a few weeks’ effort at the SEC and probably half a dozen backbenchers’ amendments to the “Stuff We Should Do IDK Could Start To Get Annoying Act of 2022”.
I guess what will be most annoying, besides being the last fool sitting on a million $’ worth of random strings, is how maddeningly unspectacular the end will be.
More specifically:
> this will effectively censor and control the code that an American software dev would have to write to comply with proper reporting
The idea that software today isn’t already, and has been from the times when bugs were actual insects, been the subject of (or had to account for) regulation is simply absurd.
As just the most obvious example, the financial sector is heavily regulated, and that includes the software, from KYC rules similar to those now proposed for cryptocurrencies, to endless requirements for documentation and archival or the exact prescription of the algorithm to be used to settle transactions.
The software in your car, plane, phone, or nuclear plant is required to follow a few dozen regulations, ISO standards, and best practice standards elevated to requirements. Every website accepting payments must implement some minimum of consumer and data protection. Your emails should respect the Oxford Dictionary and The New York Times Manual of Style, and the ADA may or may not include some requirements, although I’m not sure how binding they are.
What’s happening here is the collision of reality with two fundamental misunderstandings in the crypto community: first, they considered themselves valiant warriors challenging the FED/$/governments, certain to be immediately targeted by “the establishment” trying to defend its mighty power. Then, they expected to win that fight with superior technology. Or, as seems to be happening here, the idea that “it’s online” and thereby outside the jurisdiction of the law.
What happened was that for a decade or so, “the establishment” reacted with some mixture of mild interest, bemused looks, and just not giving a shit. Then, when cryptocurrencies had proven worthless except for scams, tax evasion, and CO_2 production, they started cutting it down to size, with maybe a few weeks’ effort at the SEC and probably half a dozen backbenchers’ amendments to the “Stuff We Should Do IDK Could Start To Get Annoying Act of 2022”.
I guess what will be most annoying, besides being the last fool sitting on a million $’ worth of random strings, is how maddeningly unspectacular the end will be.
Do you sincerely think these 70 year old politicians understand the technology and implications? There can be varying amounts of regulation and oversight for software, but the whole point of a decentralized crypto currency is it's ungovernable.
If you're for this increased regulation fine, just understand it will push innovation and capital elsewhere in the world. And despite what you may want, bitcoin will not die.
If you're for this increased regulation fine, just understand it will push innovation and capital elsewhere in the world. And despite what you may want, bitcoin will not die.
> but the whole point of a decentralized crypto currency is it's ungovernable.
Why should governments care about opinions from the crypto industry, if the whole point is to evade legislation?
Why should governments care about opinions from the crypto industry, if the whole point is to evade legislation?
>Do you sincerely think these 70 year old politicians understand the technology and implications?
Politicians of any age aren't domain experts and don't appear to be any smarter than they have to be to get and hold office. Judging from reading the writings from politicians of yore, I do have to say that the better minds in Congress can't compare to their 19th C. equivalents. It could simply be that a classical education served as a sort of filter.
As far as implications, humans are notably bad at that generally, whether it's tax law or something that involves those computer things. The laws of unintended consequences continue on, but that never stopped the writing (by Congressional staff) of more and more rules for us all.
Politicians of any age aren't domain experts and don't appear to be any smarter than they have to be to get and hold office. Judging from reading the writings from politicians of yore, I do have to say that the better minds in Congress can't compare to their 19th C. equivalents. It could simply be that a classical education served as a sort of filter.
As far as implications, humans are notably bad at that generally, whether it's tax law or something that involves those computer things. The laws of unintended consequences continue on, but that never stopped the writing (by Congressional staff) of more and more rules for us all.
>If you're for this increased regulation fine, just understand it will push innovation and capital elsewhere in the world.
What does this even mean? What innovation did Bitcoin bring to the world other than an easy way to bypass government control? That cat and mouse game has existed as long as governments existed. This only helps if you are fleeing from a worse government to a better government. Completely avoiding governments is impossible. Even on El Salvador Bitcoin acceptance depends on the government.
Pushing capital doesn't even make any sense. What are you going to do with all your "Bitcoin" capital if nobody is trading their USD for BTC? Is the economy of El Salvador really powerful enough to counteract the loss of USA as your trading partner? USD and BTC are just numbers on a balance sheet. You still need to convince people in the real world to give up their real wealth in exchange for it. For the USD it's pretty obvious. People pay their taxes and debts in USD. If the number of people doing that is shrinking then the amount of real wealth you can extract will shrink. That also applies to BTC. It's not like moving BTC from USA to El Salvador will also move factories (you know, the capital in capitalism) there.
What does this even mean? What innovation did Bitcoin bring to the world other than an easy way to bypass government control? That cat and mouse game has existed as long as governments existed. This only helps if you are fleeing from a worse government to a better government. Completely avoiding governments is impossible. Even on El Salvador Bitcoin acceptance depends on the government.
Pushing capital doesn't even make any sense. What are you going to do with all your "Bitcoin" capital if nobody is trading their USD for BTC? Is the economy of El Salvador really powerful enough to counteract the loss of USA as your trading partner? USD and BTC are just numbers on a balance sheet. You still need to convince people in the real world to give up their real wealth in exchange for it. For the USD it's pretty obvious. People pay their taxes and debts in USD. If the number of people doing that is shrinking then the amount of real wealth you can extract will shrink. That also applies to BTC. It's not like moving BTC from USA to El Salvador will also move factories (you know, the capital in capitalism) there.
Bitcoin brought a trustless way of moving capital or digital property to any location throughout the world with no intermediary.
Today it might just be El Salvador but bet on more countries joining the network based off of the game theory of the network. This innovation is profound and will revolutionize economies in the 21st century leading to better allocation of capital and the world finally getting off of the petrodollar.
Today it might just be El Salvador but bet on more countries joining the network based off of the game theory of the network. This innovation is profound and will revolutionize economies in the 21st century leading to better allocation of capital and the world finally getting off of the petrodollar.
Do you sincerely believe these 70 year old politicians write these amendments themselves, without any input from an army of underpaid graduates of Harvard Law and Caltech, or the ability to call Elon Musk whenever they are having trouble setting up their granddaughter’s bottle rocket?
Except they're not calling Elon Musk either, because Wall Street is sitting right next to them telling them what to type in order to protect their vested interests.
Not true. With the notable exception of malware and an ambiguous thin line on cracking software, these regulations only apply to operational facilitation, usually requiring financial participation in the activity. Of course when the activity is associated with terrorism, treason, or ‘crimes against humanity’, almost anything goes. Admittedly this could be a very wide net, as we saw with crypto regulation in the 90s, although I don’t know that any open source contributors were prosecuted.
But, reality check, it will not be a matter of laws once the threat becomes existential.
But, reality check, it will not be a matter of laws once the threat becomes existential.
>Software should be protected with the same rights we have with speech.
... you do realize just how many restrictions exist and have historically existed on speech, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
... you do realize just how many restrictions exist and have historically existed on speech, right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_State...
It’s a shared planet and resources but unfortunately you don’t own any of it.
Political ownership calls the shots. Might look different if the politically detached organized against rent seeking and monopoly but you’re all busy building rent seeking startups, easily monopolized blockchains for pump and dumpers funded by nation states.
What a shock politics are going fascist.
Remember when taxes were high and people were politically engaged, America was held up as a haven.
Now it’s mocked as a shit hole.
Political ownership calls the shots. Might look different if the politically detached organized against rent seeking and monopoly but you’re all busy building rent seeking startups, easily monopolized blockchains for pump and dumpers funded by nation states.
What a shock politics are going fascist.
Remember when taxes were high and people were politically engaged, America was held up as a haven.
Now it’s mocked as a shit hole.
> It is baffling how lawmakers who have so little understanding of the technology write these things into law.
And this happens constantly, on all types of things, not just technology.
And this happens constantly, on all types of things, not just technology.
gigatexal(1)
thysultan(1)
All living creatures who want the planet to still be habitable in 20 years celebrate 'wonderful' new bill that will lower incentives for people to burn coal to collect imaginary tokens.
Actually part of the issue is that the bill is worded such that effectively everyone involved in a cryptocurrency (including developers) would be treated as financial brokers and would be subject to all the regulations and tax compliance laws that go with that EXCEPT Proof of Work miners...
The base wording is untenable to a certain extent. The Wyden amendment is a reasonable compromise but the Warner amendment (which is the one with White House support) that came out at the last second includes absolutely everyone in the ecosystem except those that burn extraordinary amounts of power.
The base wording is untenable to a certain extent. The Wyden amendment is a reasonable compromise but the Warner amendment (which is the one with White House support) that came out at the last second includes absolutely everyone in the ecosystem except those that burn extraordinary amounts of power.
So if we look closer we can see that US energy companies will benefit short-term from the fact that miners are excluded from the bill.
The lobbying is strong.
The lobbying is strong.
You misunderstand, and should actually read the current amendment. Because it actually bans everything but miners. I.e. the electricity guzzling miners would keep running, but all the software devs trying to transition crypto networks to low resource usage consensus mechanisms would be made illegal.
If you feel that crypto is an environmental disaster, you should be vigorously opposed to the Portman-Warner amendment.
If you feel that crypto is an environmental disaster, you should be vigorously opposed to the Portman-Warner amendment.
Would it change the effect much to add miners? It seems like this would tank the prospects of most mainstream crypto as is.
Funnily enough, this bill actually does more to quash next-gen green alternatives to bitcoin.
By misrepresenting validators as "brokers", cryptocurrencies such as Nano, which uses six million times less energy per transaction, are effectively outlawed in the US.
Miners, on the other hand, are not penalised by this bill whatsoever.
By misrepresenting validators as "brokers", cryptocurrencies such as Nano, which uses six million times less energy per transaction, are effectively outlawed in the US.
Miners, on the other hand, are not penalised by this bill whatsoever.
But the new ammendment explicitly exempts proof of work miners thereby only hindering the green creation of imaginary tokens.
[deleted]
Clean renewable energy is becoming cheaper and more accessible. Miners are already being incentivized because of economics to move to green energy sources up to 50 percent of mining is done with clean energy.
I've never understood this narrative. There is no narrative about other industries like gold mining that also consume exorbitant amounts of power that you could deem useless. If you do not believe in the thesis of a decentralized currency and the freedom it brings it is easy to say things like this.
I've never understood this narrative. There is no narrative about other industries like gold mining that also consume exorbitant amounts of power that you could deem useless. If you do not believe in the thesis of a decentralized currency and the freedom it brings it is easy to say things like this.
> Miners are already being incentivized because of economics to move to green energy sources up to 50 percent of mining is done with clean energy.
That green energy could easily be used to take coal-fired plants offline, if it wasn’t being arbitrarily consumed for crypto. Also I seriously doubt that anywhere near 50% of mining is done with clean energy.
Miners don’t care where energy comes from as long as it’s cheap. Energy consumed for one thing is energy that can’t be used for something else.
It almost doesn’t matter which power plant they’re closest to because we have a power grid that ties everything together. This idea of miners being isolated from the grid and consuming clean energy that would otherwise go to waste is pure myth.
> I've never understood this narrative. There is no narrative about other industries like gold mining that also consume exorbitant amounts of power that you could deem useless.
Gold is extremely useful in many industrial processes and many products. It’s not even close to “useless”.
Crypto mining is literally designed to burn power. No other industrial process is literally designed to be inefficient with energy consumption. Nothing compares.
Proof of work is an algorithm that burns power as an input to the algorithm. Miners have to burn power just to continue the existence of the currency, which isn’t comparable to one-time extraction costs of resources.
Worse, proof of work is literally designed to be more inefficient with every new miner while also incentivizing new miners to join. Can you name any other industry that incentivized everyone to do things to make the system less efficient while burning more power all of the time?
That green energy could easily be used to take coal-fired plants offline, if it wasn’t being arbitrarily consumed for crypto. Also I seriously doubt that anywhere near 50% of mining is done with clean energy.
Miners don’t care where energy comes from as long as it’s cheap. Energy consumed for one thing is energy that can’t be used for something else.
It almost doesn’t matter which power plant they’re closest to because we have a power grid that ties everything together. This idea of miners being isolated from the grid and consuming clean energy that would otherwise go to waste is pure myth.
> I've never understood this narrative. There is no narrative about other industries like gold mining that also consume exorbitant amounts of power that you could deem useless.
Gold is extremely useful in many industrial processes and many products. It’s not even close to “useless”.
Crypto mining is literally designed to burn power. No other industrial process is literally designed to be inefficient with energy consumption. Nothing compares.
Proof of work is an algorithm that burns power as an input to the algorithm. Miners have to burn power just to continue the existence of the currency, which isn’t comparable to one-time extraction costs of resources.
Worse, proof of work is literally designed to be more inefficient with every new miner while also incentivizing new miners to join. Can you name any other industry that incentivized everyone to do things to make the system less efficient while burning more power all of the time?
> It almost doesn’t matter which power plant they’re closest to because we have a power grid that ties everything together. This idea of miners being isolated from the grid and consuming clean energy that would otherwise go to waste is pure myth.
It's not a myth it's exactly what happens. Stranded power is a real thing and not every country has the same power grid infrastructure that the US has.
As soon as China actually built out a high voltage grid that can make use of some of their stranded power they kicked out the miners, who moved to other areas with near free power.
It's not a myth it's exactly what happens. Stranded power is a real thing and not every country has the same power grid infrastructure that the US has.
As soon as China actually built out a high voltage grid that can make use of some of their stranded power they kicked out the miners, who moved to other areas with near free power.
Sure, miners definitely use up to 50% renewables, especially asian ones. Why wouldn't that green energy be used for something actually useful?
The rest: Cough whataboutism cough
The rest: Cough whataboutism cough
Because it is in a remote location where that much energy isn’t neeedwd for daily use
Dear clickbait title editor, can you be more specific in distinguishing between cryptocurrency and crypto communities?
Similar to the change in definition for the word 'literally', the common parlance has evolved and 'crypto' now means cryptocurrency.
A good test is to look at a sentence like "are you into crypto?". Absent any other context, the majority of the English speaking world will interpret that question as being about cryptocurrency, and most won't even try to disambiguate. Someone who wanted to ask if you are into cryptography would have disambiguated in the first place.
A good test is to look at a sentence like "are you into crypto?". Absent any other context, the majority of the English speaking world will interpret that question as being about cryptocurrency, and most won't even try to disambiguate. Someone who wanted to ask if you are into cryptography would have disambiguated in the first place.
> Absent any other context, the majority of the English speaking world will interpret that question as being about cryptocurrency,
There aren't many contexts where "crypto" means cryptography anymore.
gcc -lcrypto
Military grade crypto
Anything else?
There aren't many contexts where "crypto" means cryptography anymore.
gcc -lcrypto
Military grade crypto
Anything else?
As painful as it is, I think that with general/popular tech media this particular ship has sailed quite a while ago
I haven't opened the article but I'm guessing it's all about cryptocurrency
I am sorry to inform you that "crypto" has been completely standard finance jargon for crypto-tokens traded for money for a few years now.
Of course, we know that "crypto" really stands for "cryptosporidium". You can even substitute the full word into most articles about "crypto" tokens and it'll still be accurate.
Of course, we know that "crypto" really stands for "cryptosporidium". You can even substitute the full word into most articles about "crypto" tokens and it'll still be accurate.
Does not come as surprise.
Simply too many unaccounted for scams, money laundering, extortion as a service incidents.
I think many other countries will follow the US steps, more or less willingly.
The govt will not learn any new information just put miners in legal gray area so the businesses move to other countries. People can still use tokens. Cracking down on crime is a different topic
Why are they not so eager about tax evasion and avoidance done by big corporations? Tax payer loses much much much more money through that, than through any crypto fiddles.
Makes you think who lawmakers work for...
This tacked on addition to an important bill makes it clear how incredibly threatened the existing power base feels about the growth of cryptocurrency.
I have much the same feeling about this as when I realised that journalists aren't actually experts in any of the topics about which they write stories that society-as-a-whole take as the whole truth.
It took me a long time to know what the phrase "going off half-cocked" meant. This is an excellent example.
It also feels quite exemplary of some of the recent discussion on HN of the stereotypical situation where management makes decisions on a very simplified understanding of a situation and will remain in stoic avoidance of having any exposure to the details that may impinge upon their chosen world view.
Although maybe not quite to this scale[0][1].
[0]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
It took me a long time to know what the phrase "going off half-cocked" meant. This is an excellent example.
It also feels quite exemplary of some of the recent discussion on HN of the stereotypical situation where management makes decisions on a very simplified understanding of a situation and will remain in stoic avoidance of having any exposure to the details that may impinge upon their chosen world view.
Although maybe not quite to this scale[0][1].
[0]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
[1]: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2140747-laws-of-mathema...
Am I the only one who thinks the term “crypto community” is ambiguous in the article title. I thought I was going to be reading an article about how a particular bill has digital privacy implications due to misunderstood regulation of cryptography.
It is ambiguous and lacking context clues to point to one or the other. I think they should both be spelled out in titles.
This is puzzling to me because all this effort would have been more effective if it were spent on fighting the actual problem - people becoming filthy rich and then essentially leaving our system of government and taxation.
Fighting tax loopholes increases the revenue without "tax-increase" optics, and it's extremely popular.
This is happening because our system is completely broken beyond the point of return. Once wealth takes hold of law-making powers, that's it.
I guess I answered my own question.
Fighting tax loopholes increases the revenue without "tax-increase" optics, and it's extremely popular.
This is happening because our system is completely broken beyond the point of return. Once wealth takes hold of law-making powers, that's it.
I guess I answered my own question.
When you hear about the environmental consequences of crypto, the massive amounts of electricity, the GPU shortages, that’s all PoW. PoS is designed to eliminate that and make crypto no more resource intensive than any other p2p network like BitTorrent.
Regardless of your view on crypto, there’s no defensible justification for the Portman-Warner amendment. It’d be like passing a bill banning electric vehicles but not gasoline, or shutting down solar plants but not coal plants.