Swedish government agencies say energy-intensive crypto mining should be banned(fi.se)
fi.se
Swedish government agencies say energy-intensive crypto mining should be banned
https://www.fi.se/en/published/presentations/2021/crypto-assets-are-a-threat-to-the-climate-transition--energy-intensive-mining-should-be-banned/
295 comments
Honestly do we really need cryptocurrency? I don’t want my transactions public. I like exchanging cash for weed (legal in California) and nobody needs to know regardless. I also don’t understand what’s wrong with USD. I grew up in a third world country so maybe it could help people there but in USA? I’m happy with the dollar fluctuations vs four digit fluctuations daily.
Can someone give me a good explain?
Can someone give me a good explain?
The explanation is simply that there are people that have bought in that want others to buy in also so they can liquidate for a profit. Meanwhile, others are susceptible to what amounts to FOMO-driven investment. The same sentiment that drove the beanie-baby craze, the dot-com boom, the subprime mortgage crisis, the current metaverse craze, and so on. Nothing new under the sun.
>there are people that have bought in that want others to buy in also so they can liquidate for a profit.
Is that any different than a ponzi/pyramid scheme?
Is that any different than a ponzi/pyramid scheme?
Consider this.
Crypo cannot create or destroy fiat currency. So if you sell your crypto and make a profit in dollars, it's exactly because someone else bought it at a higher price than you did.
And they expect someone else will buy it from them, in just the same way...
So every dollar that comes out of cryptocurrency is because a later investor put a dollar in.
Doesn't that sound like the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
Crypo cannot create or destroy fiat currency. So if you sell your crypto and make a profit in dollars, it's exactly because someone else bought it at a higher price than you did.
And they expect someone else will buy it from them, in just the same way...
So every dollar that comes out of cryptocurrency is because a later investor put a dollar in.
Doesn't that sound like the definition of a Ponzi scheme?
Actually it can create fiat currency... in a roundabout way...
The core of the coin ecosystem are the stable coins, which are generally pegged to fiat, but are only backed by fractional reserves of cash. So the same USD can be recycled many times to buy Bitcoin.
Not only that, but the stable coin operators are under no obligation to exchange their coins back to you for the pegged currency at face value.
Tether is essentially an unregulated bank with nominal deposits totaling 73 billion USD, no obligation to pay depositors, a huge amount of minimally disclosed liabilities, and unaudited financial reserves.
Ponzi was but an amateur.
The core of the coin ecosystem are the stable coins, which are generally pegged to fiat, but are only backed by fractional reserves of cash. So the same USD can be recycled many times to buy Bitcoin.
Not only that, but the stable coin operators are under no obligation to exchange their coins back to you for the pegged currency at face value.
Tether is essentially an unregulated bank with nominal deposits totaling 73 billion USD, no obligation to pay depositors, a huge amount of minimally disclosed liabilities, and unaudited financial reserves.
Ponzi was but an amateur.
>Not only that, but the stable coin operators are under no obligation to exchange their coins back to you for the pegged currency at face value.
>but are only backed by fractional reserves of cash.
Maybe tether, but that isn't true of all, or even most stablecoins. Some stablecoins are overcollateralized rather than fractionally lent. As for the obligation, USDC for example is a fully audited system (by firm Grant Horton, who performs weekly audits), backed 1:1 by cash/cash equivalents and redeemable for $1 USD.
>but are only backed by fractional reserves of cash.
Maybe tether, but that isn't true of all, or even most stablecoins. Some stablecoins are overcollateralized rather than fractionally lent. As for the obligation, USDC for example is a fully audited system (by firm Grant Horton, who performs weekly audits), backed 1:1 by cash/cash equivalents and redeemable for $1 USD.
USDC only has half the market cap of Tether. In fact, Tether has a higher market cap than all the other stable coins combined! So everything I've said is still true even if some operators are not as shady as the market leader.
https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/
However, even USDC is still doing fractional reserve banking because an unspecified amount of its reserves are tied up in securities that have maturities up to 90 days, so they are still susceptible to a bank run. Though, granted they seem to be running a much more respectable operation than Tether.
The third biggest stable coin BUSD, looks pretty shady as well. They release monthly audited accounts (good), but they're terse as hell. What liabilities do they have? Have these reserves been used as collateral in loans? Which banks are they in? What steps have the firm taken to audit these funds? No way to know, we're just get a terse list of aggregate numbers.
https://paxos.com/attestations
https://coinmarketcap.com/view/stablecoin/
However, even USDC is still doing fractional reserve banking because an unspecified amount of its reserves are tied up in securities that have maturities up to 90 days, so they are still susceptible to a bank run. Though, granted they seem to be running a much more respectable operation than Tether.
The third biggest stable coin BUSD, looks pretty shady as well. They release monthly audited accounts (good), but they're terse as hell. What liabilities do they have? Have these reserves been used as collateral in loans? Which banks are they in? What steps have the firm taken to audit these funds? No way to know, we're just get a terse list of aggregate numbers.
https://paxos.com/attestations
That means the ones at the bottom, whenever that bottom is gonna be reached, will be left holding the bags for those who got in and got out early.
This exact reasoning can be applied to the buying and selling of gold, can it not? I’m not saying that therefore it’s moot, but is there a difference? Would you call gold a ponzu scheme as well or do you see a difference between the two? It can also be applied to, for example, the buying and selling of old watches or art.
The key difference between just pure bubble assets (where extrinsic demand outstrips intrinsic demand) and Ponzi schemes are the representation of the real thing being bought underneath.
In the gold market, you are buying a contract to deliver you physical gold at a point in time.
Similarly with tulips, Beanie babies, fine art, and old watches the underlying asset is what it is.
MLMs and other traditional pyramid schemes also do typically hand you real assets, and so are not inherently Ponzi schemes.
But when that extrinsic demand is driven by fraudulent claims (like Madoff's "beat the market every year" returns), then it can be considered a Ponzi scheme, because they don't even get the tulips or Picassos or whatever, they get nothing.
The gray area, especially with MLMs, is what kind of support and service benefits you get - these are often fraudulent or misleading (Ponzi scheme) but they don't inherently have to be.
In the gold market, you are buying a contract to deliver you physical gold at a point in time.
Similarly with tulips, Beanie babies, fine art, and old watches the underlying asset is what it is.
MLMs and other traditional pyramid schemes also do typically hand you real assets, and so are not inherently Ponzi schemes.
But when that extrinsic demand is driven by fraudulent claims (like Madoff's "beat the market every year" returns), then it can be considered a Ponzi scheme, because they don't even get the tulips or Picassos or whatever, they get nothing.
The gray area, especially with MLMs, is what kind of support and service benefits you get - these are often fraudulent or misleading (Ponzi scheme) but they don't inherently have to be.
Most ponzi/pyramid schemes don't burn as much coal and cause as much cancer and lung disease.
You don't need to invest if you just want to use it.
But you still need to burn coal and cause cancer and lung disease to use it.
The utility of crypto comes from two factors: its decentralization, and its pseudonymity.
The decentralization is only useful in a world where the central authority (e.g. banking system, governments) are not trustworthy, and this excludes legal activities where a legal remedy is enormously valuable. I've heard that international transactions are a use case, but realistically if a country reneged on a financial transaction the remedy is and always would be soft- or hard-power based (diplomacy, sanctions, military).
The pseudonymity is only useful to the extent that you don't want the government to track you. But our societies have generally decided that the government should have oversight into how we spend our money to stop criminal activity. Agree or not, this is the consensus: so it makes no sense to argue that the government should then tolerate a system that undermines its rules.
If we wanted to allow anonymous transactions, we could do so much more efficiently by simply removing KYC regulations on the banks. We aren't going to do that, and in fact KYC is broadly being implemented at crypto exchanges so for the overwhelming majority of crypto users there is no real benefit: you're already centralized and everyone already knows what you're doing.
Even for the speculative investors there is limited utility: they could simply invest in derivative securities on traditional markets without incurring the incredible cost of performing crypto transactions.
The decentralization is only useful in a world where the central authority (e.g. banking system, governments) are not trustworthy, and this excludes legal activities where a legal remedy is enormously valuable. I've heard that international transactions are a use case, but realistically if a country reneged on a financial transaction the remedy is and always would be soft- or hard-power based (diplomacy, sanctions, military).
The pseudonymity is only useful to the extent that you don't want the government to track you. But our societies have generally decided that the government should have oversight into how we spend our money to stop criminal activity. Agree or not, this is the consensus: so it makes no sense to argue that the government should then tolerate a system that undermines its rules.
If we wanted to allow anonymous transactions, we could do so much more efficiently by simply removing KYC regulations on the banks. We aren't going to do that, and in fact KYC is broadly being implemented at crypto exchanges so for the overwhelming majority of crypto users there is no real benefit: you're already centralized and everyone already knows what you're doing.
Even for the speculative investors there is limited utility: they could simply invest in derivative securities on traditional markets without incurring the incredible cost of performing crypto transactions.
> Honestly do we really need cryptocurrency?
This is a fundamentally unfair question. People waste lots of resources on things I don't think we need. There is a powerful principle in modern economies that if people have money then they don't need to justify what they think is a good idea to you, me, the government or anyone else unless there are compelling reasons to.
"Do you need this?" isn't a question that is asked anywhere except when there is measurable harm. Mining bitcoins doesn't cause measurable harm. If it does, then that is an argument that we shut down the electricity grid - a different debate.
We may as well ban half the technology we have. People don't need any of it.
This is a fundamentally unfair question. People waste lots of resources on things I don't think we need. There is a powerful principle in modern economies that if people have money then they don't need to justify what they think is a good idea to you, me, the government or anyone else unless there are compelling reasons to.
"Do you need this?" isn't a question that is asked anywhere except when there is measurable harm. Mining bitcoins doesn't cause measurable harm. If it does, then that is an argument that we shut down the electricity grid - a different debate.
We may as well ban half the technology we have. People don't need any of it.
We also ban quite a few things like CFC’s. Cryptocurrency might not be inherently significantly harmful to the environment but proof of work coins are, so it just comes down to a question of benefit vs harm.
That doesn’t mean we need to ban Bitcoin as a country mandating all computation bound proof of work coins on date X would allow for a transition. However existing miners already have significant investments and are going to keep trying to profit from them which makes such transitions problematic.
That doesn’t mean we need to ban Bitcoin as a country mandating all computation bound proof of work coins on date X would allow for a transition. However existing miners already have significant investments and are going to keep trying to profit from them which makes such transitions problematic.
But we do have good reasons to ban it. It does cause measurable harm.
It’s exactly the same argument that led to the ban of CFCs, incandescent light bulbs, direct electric space heating, and cars without catalytic converters the list goes on and on.
It’s exactly the same argument that led to the ban of CFCs, incandescent light bulbs, direct electric space heating, and cars without catalytic converters the list goes on and on.
Who's "we"? Maybe you don't need it. Personally, I don't need golf courses, professional football or a new phone every year.
Those do have negative externalities too. They are extremely regulated in how those externalities are handled though (how many golf courses are built, where, what their environmental impact is and so on).
I don’t see a problem allowing e.g one Bitcoin to be mined but that doesn’t mean it should be any easier to set up a mining shop than to establish a new golf course.
I don’t see a problem allowing e.g one Bitcoin to be mined but that doesn’t mean it should be any easier to set up a mining shop than to establish a new golf course.
Sure, all businesses are regulated within the jurisdictions in which they operate. But if I want to set up a mining machine in my house, I don't see how a government can say that running my heater is fine but running the miner is not.. are they monitoring my electricity usage down to the device level? How?
Can you grow a ficus but not cannabis? Are they monitoring your gardening to the plant level?
The answer I suppose is that a) what’s legal isn’t necessarily what can be enforced and b) just like no one would find your single cannabis plant, this is probably about industrial level mining where authorities have insight through permits for construction, permits for yearly emissions, use of cooling water and so on.
The answer I suppose is that a) what’s legal isn’t necessarily what can be enforced and b) just like no one would find your single cannabis plant, this is probably about industrial level mining where authorities have insight through permits for construction, permits for yearly emissions, use of cooling water and so on.
Well if it only applies practically to industrial level mining, I guess that's a good thing. Since it would decentralise mining and makes it more profitable for individuals who can freely ignore the law à la file sharing, cannabis, etc. Hopefully it will make the network more robust.
> I don’t want my transactions public.
First, not all cryptos share Bitcoin's open ledger characteristics.
Look up Monero, ZCash, Grin, Beam : they all implement untraceable transactions, not just pseudo-anonymous ones like Bitcoin.
Second, pseudonymous transactions is far from being the only interesting property of Bitcoin. Among others, no centralized control is a key aspect.
First, not all cryptos share Bitcoin's open ledger characteristics.
Look up Monero, ZCash, Grin, Beam : they all implement untraceable transactions, not just pseudo-anonymous ones like Bitcoin.
Second, pseudonymous transactions is far from being the only interesting property of Bitcoin. Among others, no centralized control is a key aspect.
Complete transaction anonymity is not a feature. There are no protections against wash trading, and you have no way to gauge true market demand or pricing from transaction volume data alone.
> they all implement untraceable transactions
As a non-criminal, what use would I have for untraceable transactions?
As a non-criminal, what use would I have for untraceable transactions?
> As a non-criminal, what use would I have for untraceable transactions?
As a non-criminal, what you would you have a need for privacy?
As a non-criminal, what you would you have a need for privacy?
Imagine if you have a business and someone uses their tainted coins (from a hack or extortion or whatever) and buys something from you. You then deposit this on an exchange... And get your account locked.
Or worse, imagine using your Bitcoin wallet in a store, and the business owner sees that you have $100k in the wallet you just paid with (because it's public knowledge). He then calls his friends who will follow you and try to kidnap and torture you to hand them over.
Or worse, imagine using your Bitcoin wallet in a store, and the business owner sees that you have $100k in the wallet you just paid with (because it's public knowledge). He then calls his friends who will follow you and try to kidnap and torture you to hand them over.
Not all crypto is money. ETH for example (which will soon be proof of stake... and more energy efficient) could be considered more accurately as a really large (but relatively slow) computer that never turns off. This plus infrastructure like ipfs enables a brand new internet. Completely decentralized and free of the strangle hold of large tech companies.
To me, money and profit is less important than freedom. Web 3.0 to me is a chance to build a better future.
(For the record, I have no investments in btc, eth, or any proof of work chains. I am invested in AVAX, which has a more energy efficient consensus protocol)
To me, money and profit is less important than freedom. Web 3.0 to me is a chance to build a better future.
(For the record, I have no investments in btc, eth, or any proof of work chains. I am invested in AVAX, which has a more energy efficient consensus protocol)
Don't you realize that HBO made a whole TV show series that made fun of people who say stuff like that?
Erlich Bachman Vs Psilocybin. (Making The World a Better Place.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLvzyb3_Uc
Silicon Valley: Making the World a Better Place | SXSW Convergence 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9Dvd_NEBg
OH GOD this is hilarious! Zach Woods is so perfectly in character that I'm afraid he may actually be as deeply disturbed as the character he plays on the show. His impression of the Little Lord Fauntleroy of the Grindr empire was perfect! The setup starts at 3:40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Woods
I won't transcribe his NFSW joke, but later there's some excellent clean discussion too (starting at 13:18):
Steven Leckart (Moderator, Writer and Filmmaker)> You guys need to understand, these guys get pitched all the time by Silicon Valley. Like, we were in the back room, and there were guys from a -- can I say who it is? Should I say who it is?
(Off Camera)> Naaaaaw!
Leckart> But like this tech company that we've all read about in the news is coming up and like handing business cards, and cornering them, and telling them all about their, like, business strategies. And there is no hint -- it's like a deer in the headlights, right, like? Like you are just going to take this conversation and find a way to weave it into the show. And I sort of wondered, like, does Silicon Valley, are they just completely out to lunch about what you're doing? Like, why does anyone talk to you about this stuff?
Martin Star (Bertram Glfoyle)> They want to be a part of the show.
Erlich Bachman Vs Psilocybin. (Making The World a Better Place.):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tLvzyb3_Uc
Silicon Valley: Making the World a Better Place | SXSW Convergence 2016:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eE9Dvd_NEBg
OH GOD this is hilarious! Zach Woods is so perfectly in character that I'm afraid he may actually be as deeply disturbed as the character he plays on the show. His impression of the Little Lord Fauntleroy of the Grindr empire was perfect! The setup starts at 3:40.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zach_Woods
I won't transcribe his NFSW joke, but later there's some excellent clean discussion too (starting at 13:18):
Steven Leckart (Moderator, Writer and Filmmaker)> You guys need to understand, these guys get pitched all the time by Silicon Valley. Like, we were in the back room, and there were guys from a -- can I say who it is? Should I say who it is?
(Off Camera)> Naaaaaw!
Leckart> But like this tech company that we've all read about in the news is coming up and like handing business cards, and cornering them, and telling them all about their, like, business strategies. And there is no hint -- it's like a deer in the headlights, right, like? Like you are just going to take this conversation and find a way to weave it into the show. And I sort of wondered, like, does Silicon Valley, are they just completely out to lunch about what you're doing? Like, why does anyone talk to you about this stuff?
Martin Star (Bertram Glfoyle)> They want to be a part of the show.
> ETH for example (which will soon be proof of stake... and more energy efficient) could be considered more accurately as a really large (but relatively slow) computer that never turns off.
Run by babies who will manually change the output of the computer when it calculates something they don’t like.
Run by babies who will manually change the output of the computer when it calculates something they don’t like.
Not possible unless majority of the nodes accepts the change.
It's funny and sad that when people talk about their "freedom" in 2021, it's almost always some sort of madness: freedom not to get vaccinated; freedom not to wear a mask; freedom to use cryptocurrencies.
Isn't freedom always a freedom to do something the majority won't like and/or find absurd. Most of it is really absurd, but some things pave way for the future, and it justifies tolerating the rest of it.
I personally don't believe in cryptocurrency and blockchain in general, but also I must say if I believed in it 10 years ago I would be financially much better off :)
I personally don't believe in cryptocurrency and blockchain in general, but also I must say if I believed in it 10 years ago I would be financially much better off :)
I'm vaccinated, I wear an N95 mask when I go out. I try to be reasonable. But this comment is exactly why I think crypto is important. There are too many people now questioning the basic tenets of our liberal democracy. When I watched the president of the United States get thrown out of of the most popular forums to discuss politics at the same time, and then destroy the only place people with a different opinion could go to talk, it became clear to me that these companies have too much power.
[deleted]
In addition to what was mentioned, the hope is that once cryptocurrencies stabilize (especially the bigger ones like bitcoin, eth), they will be a hedge against government induced inflation.
Using cash is fine, but what if you need to use digital payments? Then you need to rely on third parties (VISA, PayPal, Stripe etc) who will of course charge fees from your business, or completely block you.
For instance, there are tons of stories of PayPal randomly pulling the rug under legitimate businesses, and destroying them in the process.
Or how the US government blocked payments to WikiLeaks when they presented proof of war crimes US committed.
Crypto is like digital cash in this sense, as nobody can prevent you from paying with it.
For instance, there are tons of stories of PayPal randomly pulling the rug under legitimate businesses, and destroying them in the process.
Or how the US government blocked payments to WikiLeaks when they presented proof of war crimes US committed.
Crypto is like digital cash in this sense, as nobody can prevent you from paying with it.
When you have a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I'm not fond of cryptocurrency, but there are both traceable and untraceable ones.
You could buy weed with untraceable crypto.
you don't use crypto do you? playing with money is honestly just a fun thing to do, putting it into coins you think will do well or staking it to earn more or lending it via defi, or putting it into a yearn vault etc
the other thing is that (for the 9 billionth time) people are clueless and associating all of crypto with bitcoin.
There are tons of chains that aren't proof of work and there's also nothing suggesting proof of work can't run on renewable energy either, something like 60% of chinese mining was.
the other thing is that (for the 9 billionth time) people are clueless and associating all of crypto with bitcoin.
There are tons of chains that aren't proof of work and there's also nothing suggesting proof of work can't run on renewable energy either, something like 60% of chinese mining was.
But the problem isn't that it can use renewable, but rather "steels" renewable that could be used for other purposes
> there's also nothing suggesting proof of work can't run on renewable energy
You act like we have infinite energy of all types. But we don't - it's close to a zero-sum game.
80% of US energy comes from fossil fuels. If your blockchain uses a huge amount of renewable energy, then some other application is forced to use fossil fuels.
You act like we have infinite energy of all types. But we don't - it's close to a zero-sum game.
80% of US energy comes from fossil fuels. If your blockchain uses a huge amount of renewable energy, then some other application is forced to use fossil fuels.
Crypto doesn't try to replace cash. It tries to replace digital payments (i.e. bank transfer, paypal, credit card etc) and I'm totally fine with that. Some people like paypal, visa and mastercard, some people don't.
Do digital payments need replacing?
I haven't seen physical cash in almost two years (one exception, a contractor wanted to dodge some tax) and the system just works effortlessly.
Tapping a card is easier and faster then counting change.
I don't see how paying a $20 gas fee and waiting 15 minutes would improve the situation.
I haven't seen physical cash in almost two years (one exception, a contractor wanted to dodge some tax) and the system just works effortlessly.
Tapping a card is easier and faster then counting change.
I don't see how paying a $20 gas fee and waiting 15 minutes would improve the situation.
First, physical cash is still the norm in most of the world.
Second, higher competition in the payments ecosystem would force providers to reduce their fees. The glaring example is what is happening in San Salvador, where by using Bitcoin they are likekly to save 450 USD millions/year in fees.
Second, higher competition in the payments ecosystem would force providers to reduce their fees. The glaring example is what is happening in San Salvador, where by using Bitcoin they are likekly to save 450 USD millions/year in fees.
> by using Bitcoin they are likekly to save 450 USD millions/year in fees.
More like shift 450mm/year into the pockets of the people running Chivo while creating a media circus to distract from the president's takeover of the judiciary.
Freedom!
More like shift 450mm/year into the pockets of the people running Chivo while creating a media circus to distract from the president's takeover of the judiciary.
Freedom!
This is incorrect. The transaction costs are very low and you are free to choose whatever wallet you want.
> The transaction costs are very low
That's why the government even preemptively allocated $150mm for them, I guess?
> you are free to choose whatever wallet you want.
Unless you want assistance at one of the official facilities, or the promised stimulus. Half the population is supposedly on Chivo. Defaults matter, especially if your goal is graft and not a sustainable and beneficial economic policy.
I also notice you only tried to contradict the parts critical to dear bitcoin, not about growing autocracy.
That's why the government even preemptively allocated $150mm for them, I guess?
> you are free to choose whatever wallet you want.
Unless you want assistance at one of the official facilities, or the promised stimulus. Half the population is supposedly on Chivo. Defaults matter, especially if your goal is graft and not a sustainable and beneficial economic policy.
I also notice you only tried to contradict the parts critical to dear bitcoin, not about growing autocracy.
why should I defend an autocrat?
Better question: Why should you shill a get-rich-quick pyramid scheme that destroys the environment, causes climate change, wastes energy, burns coal, and causes cancer and lung disease?
... and despite all its rhetoric about freedom, seems to be associated primarily with oligarchs, autocrats, and the biggest winners of traditional capitalism.
This is because you don't live in a sanctioned country and you have a good social credit score.
This is like saying "why do I need encryption, I don't have anything to hide".
Many people do not have this privilege.
This is like saying "why do I need encryption, I don't have anything to hide".
Many people do not have this privilege.
Sorry, i thought the fact we were discussing a move by Sweden, in English on a website dominated by Americans kind of gave the game away.
We should reopen the thread with a different premise.
"Crypto currencies have no place or value in the western world"
We should reopen the thread with a different premise.
"Crypto currencies have no place or value in the western world"
> "Crypto currencies have no place or value in the western world"
If the current demand for it, as measured by the market price is any kind of indicator, you have your work cut out for you trying to convince people.
If the current demand for it, as measured by the market price is any kind of indicator, you have your work cut out for you trying to convince people.
It hat the same place as encryption for the same reason. And it is being fought like encryption was, for the same reasons.
Wrong.
Nobody ever fought encryption because of its environmental impact and contribution to global warming and wasted energy, or because it burns lots of coal and causes cancer and lung disease.
Nobody ever fought encryption because of its environmental impact and contribution to global warming and wasted energy, or because it burns lots of coal and causes cancer and lung disease.
Correct, they picked other excuses.
You're picking other excuses for shilling cryptocurrency to detract from the hard cold sociopathic fact that you don't give a flying fuck about the environment or public health.
No, it isn't a payment system.
Check out GNU Taler (and alternatives), which really are payment systems instead of currency alternatives
Check out GNU Taler (and alternatives), which really are payment systems instead of currency alternatives
It's more of a haven asset. It doesn't make sense as a payment system, and it hasn't in a decade really succeded in that role. It has accumulated a lot of capital, however, that might otherwise have gone into other haven assets.
It's great for doing cross-border transfers without restrictions as an example. For privacy there are Monero and mixers. The solution for volatility is stablecoins. DeFi can be useful for traders, you can trade without trusting any platform to hold your assets. The most important thing: it's an open source alternative to the traditional financial system, anyone can use it for anything without asking anyone else, and it evolves very fast because there is a lot of competition and no restrictions.
Meanwhile the bitcoin marketing mega machine is going into over drive. Full/Front page ads in newspapers, targeted campaigns on the most misguided, propping up talking heads and influencers, 24*7 sms bombardment in countries all over the world offering free coins, games and wallets to rope in more and more people who have clue about anything. Show growth. Get funds to buy more marketing, target the most ignorant, produce more growth, rinse and repeat. The whole process is like a death sprial that gets more effecient every year.
The marketing industry has turned into such a global exploitative scam with the tools that have today.
The marketing industry has turned into such a global exploitative scam with the tools that have today.
Everything is a scam nowadays, from tap water to US presidency. It’s almost if the rich people stopped caring about morals and just started setting up traps to entertain themselves with the suffering of others.
>It’s almost if the rich people stopped caring about morals and just started setting up traps to entertain themselves with the suffering of others.
There is even a successful Korean TV show depicting this current situation.
There is even a successful Korean TV show depicting this current situation.
The thing is it doesn't matter whether there are a few miners or a lot. Bitcoin will continue to mine a block every 10 minutes. It's like an energy sink, you can drip in tiny amounts and get the same, or you can pour in all future fusion power plants, you get the same.
So actually it won't affect bitcoin, but it will release the energy to other uses.
So actually it won't affect bitcoin, but it will release the energy to other uses.
> whether there are a few miners or a lot. Bitcoin will continue to mine a block every 10 minutes
Thats not exactly true. Every 2016 blocks the network compares the actual blocks mined with the target blocks (at 10 mins per block), and adjusts the difficulty accordingly.
If you suddenly had less miners the current difficulty would mean that the time to mine a block would be greater than 10 mins. Depending on where it is in the 2016 block cycle it could also mean an extended period of time before the difficulty is rectified.
If the network suddenly dropped to a VERY low hashrate (like a single PC), it is possible it would take (at current difficulty) tens of millions of years to mine a single block - let alone 2016 of them. Of course, thats probably not going to happen, im just using it as an example to show that its not a fixed period of time per block.
Thats not exactly true. Every 2016 blocks the network compares the actual blocks mined with the target blocks (at 10 mins per block), and adjusts the difficulty accordingly.
If you suddenly had less miners the current difficulty would mean that the time to mine a block would be greater than 10 mins. Depending on where it is in the 2016 block cycle it could also mean an extended period of time before the difficulty is rectified.
If the network suddenly dropped to a VERY low hashrate (like a single PC), it is possible it would take (at current difficulty) tens of millions of years to mine a single block - let alone 2016 of them. Of course, thats probably not going to happen, im just using it as an example to show that its not a fixed period of time per block.
This is just wrong.
The hashrate is proportional to the network security, eg 51% attack.
The sentiment on HN against crypto strikes me as odd… it’s like saying cars are the devils tool in the 1900s …
Give it some time to evolve and embrace the future!
The sentiment on HN against crypto strikes me as odd… it’s like saying cars are the devils tool in the 1900s …
Give it some time to evolve and embrace the future!
The very first time I saw email, I immediately knew I wanted to have it. Ditto with the web. Ditto with video conferencing.
I've known about crypto for almost ten years. I worked in the field writing bits of the rippled code for a couple of years. And I still have no idea why anyone would want to use cryptocurrencies, except of course for crime.
> it’s like saying cars are the devils tool in the 1900s …
Hmm, is this comment intended to be a parody? Well, it certainly turned out that the car was the Devil's tool, because we are running as fast as we can to devastate our climate by turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.
I've known about crypto for almost ten years. I worked in the field writing bits of the rippled code for a couple of years. And I still have no idea why anyone would want to use cryptocurrencies, except of course for crime.
> it’s like saying cars are the devils tool in the 1900s …
Hmm, is this comment intended to be a parody? Well, it certainly turned out that the car was the Devil's tool, because we are running as fast as we can to devastate our climate by turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.
>car was the Devil's tool, because we are running as fast as we can to devastate our climate by turning fossil fuels into carbon dioxide.
To be fair, mankind evolved a lot due to the use of cars. Off-rail transportation has changed the way we live, not just for the worse. The coffee and bananas I bought today was transported by a motor vehicle for the last mile. The ambulance that drove my friend to the hospital was also a motor vehicle.
Most of our agriculture that is responsible for us having cheap food, is also powered by motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles have benefited nearly everyone, whereas crypto currencies haven't benefited almost anyone so far except the speculators who advocate for more people to buy in, to push the price up, so they can cash out (in fiat of course) at a higher price.
To be fair, mankind evolved a lot due to the use of cars. Off-rail transportation has changed the way we live, not just for the worse. The coffee and bananas I bought today was transported by a motor vehicle for the last mile. The ambulance that drove my friend to the hospital was also a motor vehicle.
Most of our agriculture that is responsible for us having cheap food, is also powered by motor vehicles.
Motor vehicles have benefited nearly everyone, whereas crypto currencies haven't benefited almost anyone so far except the speculators who advocate for more people to buy in, to push the price up, so they can cash out (in fiat of course) at a higher price.
Your examples are all commercial trucks, not personal cars.
If so many individual people across America didn't need to own multiple cars to commute long distances to work every day, and could simply take decent government subsidized public transportation, or ride their bike safely on well designed ubiquitous bike paths, like I can where I live in Amsterdam, then the world would be a much better place.
Just as the world would be a better place if cryptocurrency's shrill shills and speculating "investors" didn't gamble their money and buy their drugs by burning huge quantities of coal.
There are much more efficient heath-friendly and eco-friendly ways of gambling money and buying drugs than by burning coal to mine cryptocurrency.
If so many individual people across America didn't need to own multiple cars to commute long distances to work every day, and could simply take decent government subsidized public transportation, or ride their bike safely on well designed ubiquitous bike paths, like I can where I live in Amsterdam, then the world would be a much better place.
Just as the world would be a better place if cryptocurrency's shrill shills and speculating "investors" didn't gamble their money and buy their drugs by burning huge quantities of coal.
There are much more efficient heath-friendly and eco-friendly ways of gambling money and buying drugs than by burning coal to mine cryptocurrency.
> could simply take decent government subsidized public transportation, or ride their bike safely on well designed ubiquitous bike paths, like I can where I live in Amsterdam
That sounds preachy and pretentious. Like Paris Hilton saying homeless people should just stop being poor and go to an ATM and take out money to buy a house like she did. Not everyone has access to Amsterdam like infrastructure since not everyone lives in Amsterdam and usually people have no direct say in the public infrastructure of the place they live so they adapt in way that improves their live, the best way they can, usually by owning cars.
Have you considered why 85% of Germans own cars and drive almost everywhere? Same in Austria, outside of Vienna or the city center of the other "bigger" cities, you absolutely need a private car to get anywhere in a timely manner as public transport is sparse and infrequent.
You can't just come in on your high horse flat and dense rich city with top infrastructure and preach that everyone else is doing it wrong and should live like you do, because most people don't have that luxury of such choices where they live and instead have to deal as best they can with poor infrastructure choices made by governments and interest groups way before they were even born, choices which take decades and millions to reverse, if they ever even do.
So please consider this next time.
That sounds preachy and pretentious. Like Paris Hilton saying homeless people should just stop being poor and go to an ATM and take out money to buy a house like she did. Not everyone has access to Amsterdam like infrastructure since not everyone lives in Amsterdam and usually people have no direct say in the public infrastructure of the place they live so they adapt in way that improves their live, the best way they can, usually by owning cars.
Have you considered why 85% of Germans own cars and drive almost everywhere? Same in Austria, outside of Vienna or the city center of the other "bigger" cities, you absolutely need a private car to get anywhere in a timely manner as public transport is sparse and infrequent.
You can't just come in on your high horse flat and dense rich city with top infrastructure and preach that everyone else is doing it wrong and should live like you do, because most people don't have that luxury of such choices where they live and instead have to deal as best they can with poor infrastructure choices made by governments and interest groups way before they were even born, choices which take decades and millions to reverse, if they ever even do.
So please consider this next time.
It's a distributed finite state machine, that anyone can engage with on equal footing. The biggest issue right now is just that the fees are still so crazy.
But once they get L2/L3 chains properly into place, so that every interaction is just a fraction of a fraction of the new state, and you can deploy say a little chat room, or a game world, or a marketplace, a collection of router configs, etc, etc, and not have to think too hard about the state, that's getting pretty cool to me. And combine that with the dev experience starting to get good (I recently used hardhat to make a fully typed, hot reload front end, working with hot reloading fully on chain backend) - it's going to be a new frontier for hacking and side projects like the early internet was
But once they get L2/L3 chains properly into place, so that every interaction is just a fraction of a fraction of the new state, and you can deploy say a little chat room, or a game world, or a marketplace, a collection of router configs, etc, etc, and not have to think too hard about the state, that's getting pretty cool to me. And combine that with the dev experience starting to get good (I recently used hardhat to make a fully typed, hot reload front end, working with hot reloading fully on chain backend) - it's going to be a new frontier for hacking and side projects like the early internet was
I don't think I grasped any of the concepts you tried to expose as benefits of crypto.
It doesn't make sense the jump from keeping state in a distributed, trusted store for a finite state machine to deploying chat rooms, etc., what do you mean? Synchronising those states through a blockchain just to enforce some kind of distributed trust? I really don't get it.
I might be too stupid for this, bear with me. I've heard the argument about L2+ chains for a long time, Lightning has been around since 2017 and I still see this comment popping up, I still see TX fees high as fuck.
I really would like a more clear explanation of what you see as benefits, this whole paragraph reads as pure techno-babble to me.
It doesn't make sense the jump from keeping state in a distributed, trusted store for a finite state machine to deploying chat rooms, etc., what do you mean? Synchronising those states through a blockchain just to enforce some kind of distributed trust? I really don't get it.
I might be too stupid for this, bear with me. I've heard the argument about L2+ chains for a long time, Lightning has been around since 2017 and I still see this comment popping up, I still see TX fees high as fuck.
I really would like a more clear explanation of what you see as benefits, this whole paragraph reads as pure techno-babble to me.
Oh ok!
So like, you want to make a chat room, and someone has a special power to ban people, and the chat room remembers who is banned. If the banning person doesn’t log in for a while, the power moves to someone else randomly. There’s also membership tiers, so people can pay a small fee to have fancier names if they really like the room, and there are little mini games in there with leaderboards. And there’s also no one in charge, it’s just a room with some rules that exists because the people in it sort of like those rules, and anyone in it can spool another one up with different settings if they want.
All of that stuff would take quuuiiite a bit of backend logic to code. But with smart contracts you can take basically all of it for granted, it might be like… a few pages at most of contract code. And then you can focus on writing a really good user interface instead.
Anyone can then just grab that front end code that just runs in a browser, chuck a tiny bit of crypto in to fuel it, and suddenly the backend exists purely on chain. Wherever there’s a group of people, and they have some kind of collaborative set of rules they’d like to agree to, like a marketplace or anything like that, crypto makes it really really easy
The biggest issue is really just the cost. Currently it’s ~$5 to transact which is… too high for any side project or toy. But with L2’s (rolling out now) it should come down to almost nothing, so I reckon we’ll start to see some pretty cool stuff popping up soon
So like, you want to make a chat room, and someone has a special power to ban people, and the chat room remembers who is banned. If the banning person doesn’t log in for a while, the power moves to someone else randomly. There’s also membership tiers, so people can pay a small fee to have fancier names if they really like the room, and there are little mini games in there with leaderboards. And there’s also no one in charge, it’s just a room with some rules that exists because the people in it sort of like those rules, and anyone in it can spool another one up with different settings if they want.
All of that stuff would take quuuiiite a bit of backend logic to code. But with smart contracts you can take basically all of it for granted, it might be like… a few pages at most of contract code. And then you can focus on writing a really good user interface instead.
Anyone can then just grab that front end code that just runs in a browser, chuck a tiny bit of crypto in to fuel it, and suddenly the backend exists purely on chain. Wherever there’s a group of people, and they have some kind of collaborative set of rules they’d like to agree to, like a marketplace or anything like that, crypto makes it really really easy
The biggest issue is really just the cost. Currently it’s ~$5 to transact which is… too high for any side project or toy. But with L2’s (rolling out now) it should come down to almost nothing, so I reckon we’ll start to see some pretty cool stuff popping up soon
I'm also not a fan of cryptocurrency but you seem to be living a privileged life in a country with a stable currency. Crypto is godsend for people where their countries cannot be trusted.
This merely pushes Bitcoin mining to countries that do not have this kind of regulation (and probably have less renewable energy).
Then let’s ban this waste of electricity everywhere. I’m all for the idea of crypto currency, but I’m not in support or baking the planet just so a few people can get some virtual goods.
How you define waste of electricity? You writing that comment might as well be declared a waste and prohibited.
This shitty comment uses a kilojoule max. A single BTC transaction uses 1880 kWh.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
People decide that democratically. This is just like how California bans all showerheads that gives you more than a trickle of water, since they see good showers as a waste of water (All of USA has a similar ban but less restrictive). Just that in Sweden they ban wasteful businesses rather than "wasteful" quality of life improvements.
And like many other "democratic" decisions, it's just a feel-good measure. Watering your lawn is apparently a worthwhile use of resources, according to the Demos.
California bans the sale, not the use. Discrimination of how we use power is like discrimination of how we use internet service.
What happened to power network neutrality?
What happened to power network neutrality?
Well every time I visit California the showers are horrible in the hotels, so I bet hotels has to have those shitty showerheads. It would work the same here, you ban crypto mining for businesses but people will still mine privately since you can't really ban that.
Like any other waste, when it does more bad than good.
Isn't it interesting that it is never a "waste" if it is the Pentagon that is polluting and poisoning the world.
But if there is a technology that threatens government power, suddenly it's suddenly all about the Earth.
For many people, Bitcoin is the only reliable technology to prevent their savings to be destroyed by inflation and to evade cruel sanctions. Your opinion has no value to them.
But if there is a technology that threatens government power, suddenly it's suddenly all about the Earth.
For many people, Bitcoin is the only reliable technology to prevent their savings to be destroyed by inflation and to evade cruel sanctions. Your opinion has no value to them.
Compare and contrast this with military spending. Arguably, all of it is pure waste since you wouldn't need it in the first place if people weren't using violence as a means to resolve conflict. And yet here we are, so states have to allocate certain spending to maintain healthy military balance and support the walls of peace, so to speak. Even if the military is never going to be used offensively, to seize profit for the state, nations still have to waste resources on its maintenance as a deterrent of foreign aggression. (Oh, and occasionally some military-related or military-funded research results in something with non-military applications.)
Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies are the same thing but for wealth and trade, being a necessary spending on deterrent maintenance. But this time it's not tied to any government, so naturally all governments are pissed off about it to a certain degree.
Bitcoin and other decentralized cryptocurrencies are the same thing but for wealth and trade, being a necessary spending on deterrent maintenance. But this time it's not tied to any government, so naturally all governments are pissed off about it to a certain degree.
The military industrial complex has destroyed millions of lives and poisoned counties for decades to come. The abolition of the system that is perpetrating these crimes should be the top priority for any environmentalist and humanitarian.
Governments ability to print money is a critical component of this system.
Bitcoin can run on completely emission free energy and end the era of money printing.
Governments ability to print money is a critical component of this system.
Bitcoin can run on completely emission free energy and end the era of money printing.
The first point is classic whataboutism. Would you defend a murder court case by claiming people don't care when the police kill people? It's the same thing, but people being replaced by the planet.
Second point - who are these people, and how much of BTC usage comes from that, vs greedy 'investors'/'evangelists' who have bought in, and get rich by other people buying in?
It's a rich people's plaything. Poor people in third world countries own very little of it, because they are poor. Bitcoin, and crypto as a whole, is a solution in search of a problem. It can be hammered into lots of use cases, but most are solved more quickly and efficiently by a backend and a database.
Second point - who are these people, and how much of BTC usage comes from that, vs greedy 'investors'/'evangelists' who have bought in, and get rich by other people buying in?
It's a rich people's plaything. Poor people in third world countries own very little of it, because they are poor. Bitcoin, and crypto as a whole, is a solution in search of a problem. It can be hammered into lots of use cases, but most are solved more quickly and efficiently by a backend and a database.
Bitcoin is targeted because it is a threat to power, not because of any environmental concerns.
The people who use it do not have to justify it for you or anyone else. That's what makes it successful.
The people who use it do not have to justify it for you or anyone else. That's what makes it successful.
Sweden wouldn't be the first western country to ban crypto mining if it was just about power. Sweden has a lot of environmentalists in its government though, so it makes sense that Sweden is the first western country to ban it for environmental reasons.
If you think a government wouldn't ban crypto for environmental reasons, can you believe a country would ban drinking straws for environmental reasons? Yeah, that happened, banning crypto is much more reasonable than banning drinking straws.
If you think a government wouldn't ban crypto for environmental reasons, can you believe a country would ban drinking straws for environmental reasons? Yeah, that happened, banning crypto is much more reasonable than banning drinking straws.
Do you really have to just make stuff up like that?
Speak for yourself. YOU may not have any environmental concerns because you don't give a shit about the environment, but you can't blame everybody else for being that negligent.
Speak for yourself. YOU may not have any environmental concerns because you don't give a shit about the environment, but you can't blame everybody else for being that negligent.
How is BitCoin a threat to power? It’s no more a threat to power than 1990s Beanie Babies on EBay.
we should ban videogames, they use more energy than ethereum network (u.s. video game industry uses more energy than small countries!!) and the virtual goods are locked inside one game and cant even be exchanged or resold after use.
not a fan of using energy for some peoples private flights of fancy. we should prioritise actual infrastructure with social value.
not a fan of using energy for some peoples private flights of fancy. we should prioritise actual infrastructure with social value.
Yet more whataboutism. People need entertainment, but an investment medium that is designed to use as much power as possible is not remotely comparable to the basic needs of humans.
It would still raise the cost of mining. And those countries that do not ban mining will face increasing pressure to do so, due to miners pushing energy prices up.
But yes, an international treaty banning PoW crypto mining would be more effective. Then confiscate the equipment and use it to attack the networks.
But yes, an international treaty banning PoW crypto mining would be more effective. Then confiscate the equipment and use it to attack the networks.
Unless they buy their own coal plant?
How about an international treaty instituting a carbon tax, if C02 is what you actually want to minimize. Sounds like that's not the goal based on your comment though.
High mining cost is what provides network security.
I doubt there will be popular support for military interventions against Bitcoin. But if a "War against Bitcoin" were to happen, it would probably be as successful as the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror"
I doubt there will be popular support for military interventions against Bitcoin. But if a "War against Bitcoin" were to happen, it would probably be as successful as the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror"
It would actually make the network more secure, since mining would shift from big industry players to local private users who mine from home electricity. You can't hide a power dependent business and poor countries lack the power production for significant mining operations.
Yes and the same argument is used for all green laws which makes things like manufacturing more expensive. When becoming greener, we have to start some where
Sure, let them go ahead. Then see what happens when they start having blackouts (or other problems).
Then those countries can solve the problem in their local environment.
It is a very slippery slope, though, when a small group of people starts deciding what use of electricity is allowed.
Also, I think it is absolutely BS to claim that allowing bitcoin mining equals not "letting society transition to a more sustainable future".
If electricity production is constrained then this should be addressed generally on both demand and supply sides instead of essentially finding scapegoats.
(I don't like bitcoin, by the way, but it's not a reason to go over the top)
Also, I think it is absolutely BS to claim that allowing bitcoin mining equals not "letting society transition to a more sustainable future".
If electricity production is constrained then this should be addressed generally on both demand and supply sides instead of essentially finding scapegoats.
(I don't like bitcoin, by the way, but it's not a reason to go over the top)
Seu, you are absolutely right. "The required climate transition" is 100% on the button. We cannot allow the moneyed class to close the future for humanity IMNSHO. Thanks for such clarity.
Option c: price energy usage accordingly and profit off cryptominers. You'll have the funds to expand energy production capacity to both solve today problem and future proof infrastructure
Or maybe just invest in atomic energy that is capable of producing enough power for current and future needs?
Nuclear is clean and sustainable and can allow people to mine bitcoin and even heat their homes, which seems to be a problem currently in some regions of Europe.
Nuclear energy may not release CO2 into the atmosphere, but that doesn't make it clean and sustainable:
- you need to store radioactive waste for hundreds of years
- "safe" permanent storage sites often end up not not being actually safe 50 years later
- warming rivers by using the water for cooling may wreck local ecosystems
The only thing that is actually sustainable is not using all the energy in the first place. Bitcoin is the opposite of that.
- you need to store radioactive waste for hundreds of years
- "safe" permanent storage sites often end up not not being actually safe 50 years later
- warming rivers by using the water for cooling may wreck local ecosystems
The only thing that is actually sustainable is not using all the energy in the first place. Bitcoin is the opposite of that.
Nuclear waste is much safer than all other waste from energy production:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/06/19...
That all might be true, but there are ways to improve on those points. For instance thorium reactors are much more efficient in terms of waste, and they are much safer.
A lot of problems we have with Nuclear is because the tech most widely used was created with a side goal of advancing nuclear weapon production.
I'm by no means a nuclear maximalist, but I could see better nuclear being a component of a larger sustainable energy strategy.
A lot of problems we have with Nuclear is because the tech most widely used was created with a side goal of advancing nuclear weapon production.
I'm by no means a nuclear maximalist, but I could see better nuclear being a component of a larger sustainable energy strategy.
Thorium reactors are a castle in the air
Everything is until it isn't right? Do you think there's a fundamental problem there, or is it just taking too long?
taking too long is a fundamental problem here
Some problems are complex. If you asked me in 2012 if fuel cell cars would ever exist I would have called it a pipe-dream, but now you can buy one and use it as a real vehicle in California.
and when did we think we would have got fusion?
We can't rely on pipe dreams when solving the climate crisis
I'm not saying thorium is a solution to the climate crisis. But I think the balance is a bit far in the other direction: people rule out Nuclear unnecessarily as a part of a larger clean energy strategy because of bad associations with mushroom clouds and Chernobyl/Three Mile Island.
and waste
Readily fissile materials aren't just found lying around next to the reactor though. There is a non-negligible amount of CO2 emitted to get fuel, even for nuclear power.
I’m fine with nuclear, but producing excess nuclear waste simply to produce random bits to do absolutely nothing isn’t something I’d support.
I agree with you, but how exactly do you check for that? Put a telescreen in every home?
Treat crypto no different from stocks.
You can’t just buy, trade, and cash out stocks from some random guy online. Crypto is basically no different from stocks at this point—things change in value just because people think others expect the price to change and follow the herd.
You can’t just buy, trade, and cash out stocks from some random guy online. Crypto is basically no different from stocks at this point—things change in value just because people think others expect the price to change and follow the herd.
As someone living near one of europes largest uranium deposits, i can tell you that nuclear itself might be clean, but getting the fuel is anything but. Uranium dont come in nice nuggets like gold, its mixed up with other things so that its only fractions of grams per ton of rock you have to mine. When this rock is processed we are left with big holes in the ground that shifts the level of the waterbed, and big piles of toxic rock dust that leaks all kinds of nasty shit into said ground water.
Same for the minerals needed for batteries or most other things.
This is mining.
This is mining.
Nuclear doesn’t produce any greenhouse gasses, but with the radioactive waste it generates it of course isn’t really clean. It’s also expensive and takes decades to build.
That waste is much easier to dispose that the waste created by "renewables" like solar panels, especially with newer generation plants that burn old nuclear waste.
I am not sure how much you have looked at these newer plants? While must can use since amount of nuclear waste (which is great), their biproducts are only somewhat less toxic than the original. These are nowhere as clean as people seem to imagine.
thg(1)
This is a feature not a bug. What I'm hearing is, it takes the energy necessary to drive 1.8m kilometres to forge one bitcoin. Perfect.
And humanity is not on the verge of climate extinction, although it is the dogma of our times.
And humanity is not on the verge of climate extinction, although it is the dogma of our times.
I feel like you guys are completely inside the matrix here so allow me to explain...
Bitcoin is being fought by banks and governments because it threatens the dollar and the banking system.
The future they want is a global coin, not a decentralized currency.
Bitcoin is being fought by banks and governments because it threatens the dollar and the banking system.
The future they want is a global coin, not a decentralized currency.
How about the people win against the evil banks and governments ... and then proceeds to drown in the rising oceans, burn in increased wildfires, freeze in extremely cold weather (including all the gas and coal power plants used to mine BTC, see recent Texas events).
We could ban bitcoin and still drown in rising oceans. 100 companies contribute to 70% of Earth’s pollution. Why aren’t we banning them?
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
Classic whataboutism. Don't.
The fact that we aren't banning some things that we should (if we have an alternative) doesn't mean we shouldn't ban anything. To be clear, I'm all for banning climate change activities that we have an alternative for. Also for accelerating research into things for which we don't. Bitcoin can be regulated in order to limit the climate change effects, right now it's a huge tulip mania.
The fact that we aren't banning some things that we should (if we have an alternative) doesn't mean we shouldn't ban anything. To be clear, I'm all for banning climate change activities that we have an alternative for. Also for accelerating research into things for which we don't. Bitcoin can be regulated in order to limit the climate change effects, right now it's a huge tulip mania.
> Bitcoin is being fought by banks and governments because it threatens the dollar and the banking system.
What's wrong with the dollar? Just because something is centralized doesn't mean it's bad.
What's wrong with the dollar? Just because something is centralized doesn't mean it's bad.
> What's wrong with the dollar?
If you were a normal person living in Iran (or any other country to which the US decides to apply arbitrary economic sanctions), you might feel rather different about this.
If you were a normal person living in Iran (or any other country to which the US decides to apply arbitrary economic sanctions), you might feel rather different about this.
The government can print money at will. Just look at what's happening recently with inflation. The government does not have the right to devalue people's hard work at a whim.
>Bitcoin is being fought
Proof of Work coins are being fought for governments because they committed to goals decided in Paris Agreement and PoW CCs are making it harder to achieve the goals. Swedes discuss banning Bitcoin, but not PoS coins or premined coins that do not have PoS or PoW
Proof of Work coins are being fought for governments because they committed to goals decided in Paris Agreement and PoW CCs are making it harder to achieve the goals. Swedes discuss banning Bitcoin, but not PoS coins or premined coins that do not have PoS or PoW
Then, how is it? Mining bitcoins does not use a lot of electricity.
Good for them. The situation we’re in at the moment would be rejected as a sci-fi plot. We’re at a critical point in human history that will largely be defined by whether we as a species can save the environment, but a section of society are obsessed with speculating on a digital currency that corresponds to how much carbon you’ve released into the atmosphere for no reason other than to prove you own it.
It is funny how survival mode unleashes humanity's ingenuity. In the end the environment problem will be solved, but only after a great deal of suffering (and likely death) caused by the current irrational situation. Natural selection has a way of restoring rational thinking.
Proof of work for mining should pay hefty carbon tax.
Various other industry already pay that tax, why not mining crypto? Crypto fans make various claims, so lets check that. E.g. Any new etherum block carbon footprint would be verified through oracle and smart contracts. Based on that it will be subject to tax that will go to carbon-capture companies.
With that incentive, crypto could innovate to better methods and be buyer of last resort of clean energy.
Crypto can adapt quickly, climate can’t. We can not afford new carbon intensive industries.
Various other industry already pay that tax, why not mining crypto? Crypto fans make various claims, so lets check that. E.g. Any new etherum block carbon footprint would be verified through oracle and smart contracts. Based on that it will be subject to tax that will go to carbon-capture companies.
With that incentive, crypto could innovate to better methods and be buyer of last resort of clean energy.
Crypto can adapt quickly, climate can’t. We can not afford new carbon intensive industries.
This is nonsensical. If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for.
What you are describing penalizes somebody who uses clean energy for mining and ignores somebody who uses coal power for running his bot farm.
What you are describing penalizes somebody who uses clean energy for mining and ignores somebody who uses coal power for running his bot farm.
Using clean energy for mining still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
Using clean energy for anything still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
Yeah fine, but then it's still completely consistent that if your goal is to decrease overall energy consumption, you would find ways to curtail energy intensive activities which provide little social value.
Great, let's get rid of the military industrial complex then
Yes I would support this as well. Let's get rid of all the non-contributive activities.
My plan is to take away the governments printing press which funds the destruction. What is yours?
Do you think cryptocurrency will eliminate the military industrial complex? What prevents the people who currently have most of the capital, many of whom are benefitting from the military industrial complex, from using their capital to dominate and control cryptocurrency?
You don't have any credible argument against a real carbon tax, do you? Only an utter clown would waste time bikeshedding about cryptocurrencies when you could focus on real solutions.
E: Can't reply below, but here's a very real argument for you. It's completely absurd to bikeshed about banning an activity that doesn't even exist in Sweden at any meaningful scale. Discussing whether or not Sweden should ban cryptomining is utterly pointless when nobody is (planning to start) mining in Sweden at any significant scale.
It really does matter what government officials spend their time on, this is an utter waste. To suggest that they're doing a good thing here is just incredible.
E: Can't reply below, but here's a very real argument for you. It's completely absurd to bikeshed about banning an activity that doesn't even exist in Sweden at any meaningful scale. Discussing whether or not Sweden should ban cryptomining is utterly pointless when nobody is (planning to start) mining in Sweden at any significant scale.
It really does matter what government officials spend their time on, this is an utter waste. To suggest that they're doing a good thing here is just incredible.
No I would support a real carbon tax. I would also support regulating specific activities with perverse incentive structures, like cryptocurrency mining.
You don't have a real argument do you if you are are resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks?
You don't have a real argument do you if you are are resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks?
>If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for.
And this will happen, we will pay carbon tax for meat, electricity and electronics. I would like to get a tax discount for planting trees too, but we know that's now how governments work.
And this will happen, we will pay carbon tax for meat, electricity and electronics. I would like to get a tax discount for planting trees too, but we know that's now how governments work.
At least in theory the government should benefit from economies of scale and do a much better job at planting trees than you ever could.
I think what could be worth exploring is progressive energy taxing. Basically let each individual consume a certain amount which is needed for living a normal life, but tax energy usage exceeding that increasingly heavily.
On top of this base model one could then also introduce subsidies for specific energy intensive industries that are deemed essential (probably not bitcoin).
That would handle the distribution of limited* amount of energy we have. CO2 emissions should probably be taxed separately and progressive rates would seem reasonable to me here as well.
* Yes, we can still build more, but at some point the energy usage has to stagnate. Exponential growth in usage would lead the Earth to become very hot in a few hundred years since the only way heat gets released to space is via infrared radiation which is limited by the surface area of the planet [1, Section 1.3].
[1] Murphy, T.: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet (2021), a free textbook at https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5
On top of this base model one could then also introduce subsidies for specific energy intensive industries that are deemed essential (probably not bitcoin).
That would handle the distribution of limited* amount of energy we have. CO2 emissions should probably be taxed separately and progressive rates would seem reasonable to me here as well.
* Yes, we can still build more, but at some point the energy usage has to stagnate. Exponential growth in usage would lead the Earth to become very hot in a few hundred years since the only way heat gets released to space is via infrared radiation which is limited by the surface area of the planet [1, Section 1.3].
[1] Murphy, T.: Energy and Human Ambitions on a Finite Planet (2021), a free textbook at https://doi.org/10.21221/S2978-0-578-86717-5
I think it makes sense and aligns with the article's point. Unless we are at a point where clean energy is ubiquitous (there is no other kind), using power for mining or other power intensive processes which do not help us achieve our climate goals should be off-limits.
Why stop there though? Why don't we ban everything that uses energy and is unnecessary for achieving our climate goals?
Video games? Banned. Alcohol? Banned. Driving? Banned. Exercise? Banned - it increases your daily caloric needs. Food? Why would you need food? Eat your government rations.
Why should we prefer some activities over others by government decree? Have we not learned from the past?
Oh, you're growing the wrong kind of plant? To jail! Oh, you're doing the wrong kinds of calculations? To jail!
Video games? Banned. Alcohol? Banned. Driving? Banned. Exercise? Banned - it increases your daily caloric needs. Food? Why would you need food? Eat your government rations.
Why should we prefer some activities over others by government decree? Have we not learned from the past?
Oh, you're growing the wrong kind of plant? To jail! Oh, you're doing the wrong kinds of calculations? To jail!
I totally agree!
And they are arguably right. Proof-of-work is the technical equivalent of rolling coal, and it's time to cut out the nonsense. We have an ongoing climate disaster to deal with.
Although I'm pretty conservative regarding climate change, it's a real problem that needs adressing so the Swedish government has a legitimate reason to intervene. Maybe we can indeed travel more if we ban crypto. But more importantly I think crypto is the most wasteful, pointless and potentially dangerous development that happened this century and I fully appreciate any government wanting to ban it for literally any reason.
> most wasteful, pointless and potentially dangerous development that happened this century
hypersonic nuclear missiles... nah, it's definitely this open source software for timestamping database changes.
hypersonic nuclear missiles... nah, it's definitely this open source software for timestamping database changes.
Ballistic missiles are already hypersonic. Nuclear submarines can already fire without exposing themselves. What's the difference?
Actually most of them aren’t, but instead they are only supersonic… Making hypersonic missiles (speeds over Mach 5) is a hard problem due to changes in airflow at that speed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonic_speed
> But more importantly I think crypto is the most wasteful, pointless and potentially dangerous development that happened this century
How did you manage to miss the atomic bomb?
How did you manage to miss the atomic bomb?
> How did you manage to miss the atomic bomb?
I'm quite sure atomic bomb and cryptocurrencies were invented in different centuries (assuming original Satoshi's Bitcoin paper as origin of current crypto)
I'm quite sure atomic bomb and cryptocurrencies were invented in different centuries (assuming original Satoshi's Bitcoin paper as origin of current crypto)
Ah, I see: he meant the 21st century as opposed to the last 100 years.
A major distinction, obviously.
But my point still stands: if you believe crypto and/or PoW is the most evil thing invented in the last <X> years, you need to get more exposure to the real world, whatever X may be.
A major distinction, obviously.
But my point still stands: if you believe crypto and/or PoW is the most evil thing invented in the last <X> years, you need to get more exposure to the real world, whatever X may be.
As person living in country with ties to Scandinavian grid. I see this as very positive. I could argue that current market price situation could even be worse if crypto miners were allowed to externalize their energy cost to rest of society. That is by applying high demand the hydro would have less stored capacity available. Which kinda is currently part of the price problem.
They lower the stored capacity and pay cheap price for that which results later the general population and other industry having to pay much higher cost of electricity, while they probably stop buying it, thus not taking their fair share of costs.
They lower the stored capacity and pay cheap price for that which results later the general population and other industry having to pay much higher cost of electricity, while they probably stop buying it, thus not taking their fair share of costs.
They are not externalising their cost to the rest of society. They are paying the exact cost of the energy they spend just like the rest of people.
Which is externalizing the cost to the rest of society as there is either no or a too small carbon tax while the estimated cost on society varies between 700 Euros [0] and 100.000$ [1]
[0] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/umwelt-wirtschaft/gesel...
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4
[0] https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/daten/umwelt-wirtschaft/gesel...
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-020-02785-4
If the estimated cost on society "varies between 700 Euros [0] and 100.000$ [1]" then those scientists should be back to the drawing board because those two numbers can't make sense at the same time.
Also I don't see why only a small part of society should be paying for that "carbon tax" - all citizens should pay an amount corresponding to their energy spending and then we are back to miners not externalising anything.
Also I don't see why only a small part of society should be paying for that "carbon tax" - all citizens should pay an amount corresponding to their energy spending and then we are back to miners not externalising anything.
[deleted]
As said those are estimates.
In any case you see the current carbon tax is not anywhere near the cost.
It's worth to mention those cost depend on past, present and future emissions as well.
Where did I say that only a small part should be paying the real cost? That's a straw man.
And no: miners are externalizing exactly because the lack of a carbon tax. And from my experience they are not very interested in introducing one either.
Where did I say that only a small part should be paying the real cost? That's a straw man.
And no: miners are externalizing exactly because the lack of a carbon tax. And from my experience they are not very interested in introducing one either.
Good point, the Danish wind power is partly made viable due to interconnection with the swedish grid and its hydro power, which can generate on demand to even out the production. We sometimes see the spot price go negative when there is an excess of wind. In those cases the optimal routing of energy is essentially going through as much wire as possible, to incur transmission losses. I don't think the excess energy should be used for crypto though, it would be better to pump water back up into the reservoirs.
> due to interconnection with the swedish grid and its hydro power
... and its hydro and nuclear power.
... and its hydro and nuclear power.
I don't know what the case is in your part of the world but;
"In Sweden, all nuclear power plants are currently operating in baseload, meaning they are constantly operating at their maximum rated thermal power and maximum rated electrical output." [1]
With hydro serving as a flexible power source to compensate for fluctuations in intermittent sources like wind and solar.
[1] http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9020022
"In Sweden, all nuclear power plants are currently operating in baseload, meaning they are constantly operating at their maximum rated thermal power and maximum rated electrical output." [1]
With hydro serving as a flexible power source to compensate for fluctuations in intermittent sources like wind and solar.
[1] http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9020022
The basic idea of the economy is people can earn the right to energy, and then direct it to a goal of their choosing.
The government making a value judgement about what type of commercial activity is worthwhile is extremely risky. Countries with innovative financial and credit systems have historically steamrolled those that don't have such innovations. We still don't understand the nature of crypto.
The government making a value judgement about what type of commercial activity is worthwhile is extremely risky. Countries with innovative financial and credit systems have historically steamrolled those that don't have such innovations. We still don't understand the nature of crypto.
One role of government is to curtail negative externalities. If it's possible for a few people to profit by causing general harm through accelerating climate change, that would be well within the government's mandate to regulate against this.
It's possible that cryptocurrency will be the future of finance. It's also entirely possible that crypto - which is incredibly expensive energy-wise per transaction - is actually a waste of energy and is a net drain on economies which embrace it. It might be a competitive advantage to ban mining.
I guess Sweden will be a part of that experiment and we will see what happens.
It's possible that cryptocurrency will be the future of finance. It's also entirely possible that crypto - which is incredibly expensive energy-wise per transaction - is actually a waste of energy and is a net drain on economies which embrace it. It might be a competitive advantage to ban mining.
I guess Sweden will be a part of that experiment and we will see what happens.
I don't see how banning mining will have any negative consequences at all. What benefits would a country get from having a lot of miners? A few people would get rich at the cost of everyone else getting less electricity or higher prices. The miners relocate, and you can enjoy using bitcoin without any of the local externalities of having miners around.
That is an argument against having most non-service industries. Indeed, a similar argument would have been used for off-shoring huge amounts of manufacturing from Western societies to China (why put up with the pollution externalities when the Chinese could pick those up for us?).
The upshot is lots of the know-how now lives in China, the wealth is being generated in Shenzhen instead of the west. The argument was correct, but in hindsight it does look like the positive externalities were greater than the negative. China's growth has been much more impressive than the EUs.
The upshot is lots of the know-how now lives in China, the wealth is being generated in Shenzhen instead of the west. The argument was correct, but in hindsight it does look like the positive externalities were greater than the negative. China's growth has been much more impressive than the EUs.
Actually using government mandates to curtain negative externalities would look way different though, right? The negative externality of energy production is the same per unit energy regardless of what the energy ends up being used for.
It’s not about the negative externality of energy production, but the negative externality of Bitcoin mining. Using significant percentage of the available renewable energy, driving up prices and forcing other industries that are far less optional to resort to non-renewable energy. And probably even preventing other net-good uses of cheap energy from ever coming into existence.
Yeah exactly. Another example would be the impact on GPU prices: mining almost certainly plays a role in making GPUs less accessible, which raises the cost of ML for example. There's probably innovations which would affect the world in a positive way which we don't have right now because of the barrier to entry to ML research created by high GPU prices.
“It might be a competitive advantage to ban mining.”
I agree, but couldn’t this be said for a lot of activities? It might be a competitive advantage to ban the production of reality tv shows or video games or cars or steel. Is it really a good idea (or even morally defensible) for the state to make these kind of macro decisions (based on what might be best for the economy)?
I agree, but couldn’t this be said for a lot of activities? It might be a competitive advantage to ban the production of reality tv shows or video games or cars or steel. Is it really a good idea (or even morally defensible) for the state to make these kind of macro decisions (based on what might be best for the economy)?
"The government making a value judgement about what type of commercial activity is worthwhile is extremely risky" Bullshit. That's what government is for. It already forbids commercial activities as robbery, stealing, fraud etc. If they put crypto into the same basket I wouldn't cry much.
> ...robbery, stealing, fraud...
Those aren't commercial activities. One of the parties doesn't agree to the deal, so they are violations of property rights.
The justification for forbidding them isn't that the government has concerns about the transaction (the robber probably needs the goods more than the person they are robbing, on a needs basis most robberies might be justifiable for all I know). The problem is the involuntary nature of a robbery. That isn't a factor here.
Those aren't commercial activities. One of the parties doesn't agree to the deal, so they are violations of property rights.
The justification for forbidding them isn't that the government has concerns about the transaction (the robber probably needs the goods more than the person they are robbing, on a needs basis most robberies might be justifiable for all I know). The problem is the involuntary nature of a robbery. That isn't a factor here.
But you don’t justify a ban on robbery because of the energy usage of getaway cars, right?
This is kind of a false equivalence [0], the carbon footprint of the getaway cars would be much smaller.
Generally problems are only handled* when they come up. In this case the carbon footprint of crypto is already a problem, so therefore it is now being handled. Getaway car carbon footprint on the other hand is not a problem as of now, so therefore this is not a correct parallel to draw.
* you could argue that we should have foresight, but unfortunately this is very hard to pull of. Most policy making is thus reactive, not proactive.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
Generally problems are only handled* when they come up. In this case the carbon footprint of crypto is already a problem, so therefore it is now being handled. Getaway car carbon footprint on the other hand is not a problem as of now, so therefore this is not a correct parallel to draw.
* you could argue that we should have foresight, but unfortunately this is very hard to pull of. Most policy making is thus reactive, not proactive.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence
"Historically" the financial innovation that benefitted society was the joint stock company and similar systems of credit that essentially permitted risk pooling on wide scales.
As far as I can tell, bit coins ain't that.
As far as I can tell, bit coins ain't that.
How do we not understand the nature of it?
It is a mathematically interesting problem, but the nature of Bitcoin et.al. just makes it useful for speculation and scamming people who think it would become a digital currency.
I have yet to meet someone who bought something real with crypto.
I have yet to meet someone who bought something real with crypto.
> I have yet to meet someone who bought something real with crypto.
I bought a car last year with Bitcoins
Hi, nice to meet you.
I bought a car last year with Bitcoins
Hi, nice to meet you.
I think externalities should be priced into the cost of resources (e.g. with a Pigouvian tax), but otherwise I entirely agree.
Edit: I suppose, if you want to subsidize all uses of electricity except for cryptocurrency (and a few other areas of your choice), you could simplify this process by only applying the externality tax to miners (etc). But this should be limited to the externality, not arbitrarily high.
Edit: I suppose, if you want to subsidize all uses of electricity except for cryptocurrency (and a few other areas of your choice), you could simplify this process by only applying the externality tax to miners (etc). But this should be limited to the externality, not arbitrarily high.
But in this case the negative externalities do not come from the mining but from the energy generation. So that is the level where the externalities should be priced in.
In the current environment, you can't separate energy usage from energy generation in terms of externalities. Electrical power is something like a fungible asset, so even if you are using 100% green power (which doesn't really exist), you're still increasing demand for electricity overall, which will result in more carbon-intensive power generation in general.
In other words, decreasing power consumption is as important if not more important than increasing clean energy as a share of production.
In other words, decreasing power consumption is as important if not more important than increasing clean energy as a share of production.
Electrical power is only fungible in that sense if significant negative externalities exist which allow units of energy to be priced similarly when their sources vary significantly in total (including societal) costs. If societal costs are internalized (i.e. externalities are eliminated) then fungibility would surely disappear, because a unit of energy produced from coal would surely be more expensive than a unit of energy produced from solar.
Is this a distinction without a difference? If the climate impact of mining were truly priced in, is there any chance this activity would be remotely profitable?
Of course it would be remotely profitable for some of the miners. The difficulty adjustment is making the consensus kind of invariant of the total amount of energy used. Even security-wise Bitcoin would probably be fine at 1/10 or even 1/100 of its current power usage
The role of government is also capturing and charging for negative externalities.
From my town to the state to the federal government NONE of the government entities that affect me have that or anything like it in their charter, mission statement or other rules that define their responsibility.
Good questions to ask is does Sweden need crypto? Does it overall benefit the society than some other type of industry? I would probably argue that it is not very beneficial. Some profits are extracted, but in general economic activity ends pretty much there. Rent a warehouse have one or two people monitor and maintain it.
And it is not like Sweden doesn't already have entirely reasonable financial, payment and banking sector.
And it is not like Sweden doesn't already have entirely reasonable financial, payment and banking sector.
> The basic idea of the economy is people can earn the right to energy, and then direct it to a goal of their choosing.
Or is it that people (through government) decide what’s allowed to do in the market, and things with negative externalities are banned or taxed?
I can’t decide to buy an incandescent lightbulb and put my money towards more electricity to drive it.
Or is it that people (through government) decide what’s allowed to do in the market, and things with negative externalities are banned or taxed?
I can’t decide to buy an incandescent lightbulb and put my money towards more electricity to drive it.
Countries also ban ponzi schemes and nobody raises an eyebrow.
No capitalist country lets you buy whatever you want for no reason. You aren't allowed to hoard all the food for example, all basic utilities are regulated. So when the global crypto scam starts to hurt unrelated people by raising energy prices those people will start to complain and create regulations like this to protect themselves. I used the word "scam" since that is how most people see the crypto industry, from their perspective this is a scam that drives up energy prices, there is no point in keeping it legal.
I predict that there will be a bigger and bigger wave of bad press about proof of work.
I also predict that cryptocurrencies as a whole will suffer from that due to the inability of the medias to understand that Bitcoin is not representative of all blockchain technologies.
It’s a shame because today most modern cryptocurrencies are not based on proof of work.
I also predict that cryptocurrencies as a whole will suffer from that due to the inability of the medias to understand that Bitcoin is not representative of all blockchain technologies.
It’s a shame because today most modern cryptocurrencies are not based on proof of work.
This is an important fact. A lot of people think crypto currency==bitcoin. It would be a lot easier to have meaningful discussions on the impact on society if more effort was spent on helping people understand the different types. Maybe Bitcoin will fade away eventually and some other type of currency will be the monetary lingua franca?
A lot of people think crypto currency==bitcoin
Because economically that’s true. There is no crypto (even ETH) which could stay at its price when BTC goes up and down by a magnitude. Of course they are correlated, like INTC may correlate with APPL when markets go crazy, but this link is too rigid for all crypto under bitcoin even when it’s relatively quiet.
I don’t understand an exact reason behind this, but I believe it’s related to how crypto exchanges work internally.
Because economically that’s true. There is no crypto (even ETH) which could stay at its price when BTC goes up and down by a magnitude. Of course they are correlated, like INTC may correlate with APPL when markets go crazy, but this link is too rigid for all crypto under bitcoin even when it’s relatively quiet.
I don’t understand an exact reason behind this, but I believe it’s related to how crypto exchanges work internally.
Have you heard of stablecoins?
Yes, but I don’t trust these contracts in a long term. I’d say neither should you, but that is a personal choice.
The biggest (afaik) of these ETH contract-based coins, USDT, is owned by a single company, which is partially backing it by their BTC and it maintains a list of blocked tokens, which is by design. Of course small money is relatively safe, but for large capitals it’s just a joke.
Any smart contract with a centralized oracle entity has all of the downsides of centralized money. These are much more convenient as a medium to crypto, but that’s it.
The biggest (afaik) of these ETH contract-based coins, USDT, is owned by a single company, which is partially backing it by their BTC and it maintains a list of blocked tokens, which is by design. Of course small money is relatively safe, but for large capitals it’s just a joke.
Any smart contract with a centralized oracle entity has all of the downsides of centralized money. These are much more convenient as a medium to crypto, but that’s it.
You’re talking to the wrong person as I used to work on a stablecoin :P I think if anything the technology brings transparency and security
I hope this gets some traction in other places too.
I actually have to give China credit for making the right moves there, given our climate disaster, crypto is a doomsday cult as long as proof-of-work is a thing.
I actually have to give China credit for making the right moves there, given our climate disaster, crypto is a doomsday cult as long as proof-of-work is a thing.
Doomsday cult means something else.
The background is this:
The Swedish government (of which the green party is part) has closed down several nuclear reactors and there is a ban on building more hydro electric dams. Before Sweden had about 50% hydro + 50% nuclear.
Now electricity prices are rising a lot, especially on days when there is little wind (which generally is the case on extremely cold winter days), and emergency power plants using fossil fuels are running a lot more than before.
So now they are going to blame something else, just like any other politicians in any other country would.
Now electricity prices are rising a lot, especially on days when there is little wind (which generally is the case on extremely cold winter days), and emergency power plants using fossil fuels are running a lot more than before.
So now they are going to blame something else, just like any other politicians in any other country would.
Your comment on hydro isn't relevant since hydro output hasn't actually changed[1], meanwhile wind production has overall replaced nuclear. Total production has increased slightly while total domestic consumption has decreased slightly. So basically it comes down to increased exports and variability of wind.
1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/El...
1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/El...
I never wrote that hydro has decreases, obviously the idea was that renewables would replace nuclear but it has only done so on average, not when needed the most. Renewables including hydro would have succeeded.
Increased exports will probably continue and accelerate if nothing is stopping new transmission capacity from being built, the hydro is such a good pairing for wind in continental europe.
Why is it not relevant if growth of hydropower output has ceased? That seems like a perfectly relevant thing to point out.
Nothing has changed about the actual output of hydro power since the 80s. It wasn't growing to begin with, so it's definitely not a cause of very recent price increases.
Population grew by 25% since 1980 though, so now each person has on average 20% less hydro power if it stayed the same.
No, that's wrong. If you actually look at the graph and my comment, you'll see that consumption did not in fact increase much at all in that time and slightly decreased recently.
Sweden stopped expanding the exploitation of that natural resource in the 1960s. Most of it has been exploited already, but I think there is one additional river that could be utilized, but the plan to do that was shot down in 1970.
With today's more rigorous environmental policies, constructing more hydro power seems infeasible due to the adverse effects on wildlife diversity.
With today's more rigorous environmental policies, constructing more hydro power seems infeasible due to the adverse effects on wildlife diversity.
Prices are rising due to normal variety of weather, that is not enough rain to fill the reservoirs for future capacity. As such markets are working and prices are expected to be higher as producers optimise for profit.
Nuclear would help with this as there would be certain baseline price and hydro could store more excess capacity for those times renewable production is low.
Nuclear would help with this as there would be certain baseline price and hydro could store more excess capacity for those times renewable production is low.
> The Swedish government (of which the green party is part) has closed down several nuclear reactors
Only Barsebäck 1 in 1999, Barsebäck 2 in 2005, and that was primarily because of Danish pressure (it's very close to Copenhagen). So that's 15-20 years ago.
The other reactors (Ringhals 1 (2020), Ringhals 2 (2019), Oskarshamn 1 (2017), Oskarshamn 2 (2015)) have been shut down by the private companies operating them because they have either reached their operational lifetime and were deemed (by the private company (Vattenfall, Uniper/Eon)) not economically feasible for modernization, or just plain not profitable to keep running, due to low electricity prices.
Only Barsebäck 1 in 1999, Barsebäck 2 in 2005, and that was primarily because of Danish pressure (it's very close to Copenhagen). So that's 15-20 years ago.
The other reactors (Ringhals 1 (2020), Ringhals 2 (2019), Oskarshamn 1 (2017), Oskarshamn 2 (2015)) have been shut down by the private companies operating them because they have either reached their operational lifetime and were deemed (by the private company (Vattenfall, Uniper/Eon)) not economically feasible for modernization, or just plain not profitable to keep running, due to low electricity prices.
No, what the current government has done is not object in 2015 when the commercial owners decided to permanently turn off in total three reactors in Ringhals and Oscarshamn because electricity was just too cheap.
The actual problem is a regional on: the most souther parts of sweden is that they have more connections to the energy market in continental europe than to the big hydro-plants in the north that have plenty of excess capacity. In fact Sweden is a net exporter of electricity even in times where the emergency plants in the extreme south are running.
And water+nuclear has been at around 80% total, not 100.
The actual problem is a regional on: the most souther parts of sweden is that they have more connections to the energy market in continental europe than to the big hydro-plants in the north that have plenty of excess capacity. In fact Sweden is a net exporter of electricity even in times where the emergency plants in the extreme south are running.
And water+nuclear has been at around 80% total, not 100.
>So now they are going to blame something else, just like any other politicians in any other country would.
but somehow they decided to blame crypto-mining instead of excessive house heating and refusal to wear sweaters indoors. funny that.
but somehow they decided to blame crypto-mining instead of excessive house heating and refusal to wear sweaters indoors. funny that.
People in the developed world consume massive amounts of energy on non-essentials. Energy consumptions is not the problem. In fact, it's strongly correlated with quality of life. The problem is polluting sources of energy.
Singling out one non-essential for its use of energy and banning it, while leaving all others legal, makes no sense. Doing so is a case of scapegoating one small facet of a larger phenomenon, instead of addressing the root problem.
Singling out one non-essential for its use of energy and banning it, while leaving all others legal, makes no sense. Doing so is a case of scapegoating one small facet of a larger phenomenon, instead of addressing the root problem.
Either way, crypto currencies become impossible.
Nice, what other software I'm not allowed to run on my machine? Can I play high end games? Make scientific computations? Experiment with machine learning?
A totally valid point. It seems like the proposed ban is based on the fact that the computations costs a lot of energy, are “wasteful”, and only makes the miner in question happy. I don’t see how this differs from playing high-end computer games. Surely, you could argue that kids in the 70’s, only having access to board games, could get just as much enjoyment out of these as kids today get out of playing CoD, with the added benefit that you have to meet other people in person and that you’re not getting addicted to loot boxes. So, should we follow China in banning computer games?
This is purposefully reductio ad absurdum.
Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid rhetorical device, it is even used in mathematical proofs.
What I want to say is that regulating what kind of computations I can run on my machine is pretty bad.
It would make more sense to regulate maximum power consumption of computers like it is done with lightbulbs
What I want to say is that regulating what kind of computations I can run on my machine is pretty bad.
It would make more sense to regulate maximum power consumption of computers like it is done with lightbulbs
> This is purposefully reductio ad absurdum.
It's not, he's making a valid point.
To put it in a maybe a more arguable way:
where do you draw the line at a government deciding what you can and can't run on your computer?
It's not, he's making a valid point.
To put it in a maybe a more arguable way:
where do you draw the line at a government deciding what you can and can't run on your computer?
You already can't keep child porn on your computer, nor are you allowed to run programs that requires a license if you don't have one, nor can you share or copy IP protected works etc. Banning crypto mining wouldn't move us noticeably closer to governments regulating everything you do on your computer.
Without advocating for legalization of child porn, we can see how it is being used by the governments for justifying violations of digital privacy on various levels, so it's definitely not a good thing to double down on
I would argue that this proposal does bring it a step further though. Child porn involves a child being abused before it gets to your machine. To crack a piece of software you need to take software written by someone else and modify it to avoid paying the author. It is based o a legal framework of intellectual property, which I don't agree with, but at least it looks like a valid framework of property rights in general. This proposal also covers software that you write yourself. It is also totally arbitrary, because it doesn't even try to pretend that you are violating someone else's rights.
I would argue that this proposal does bring it a step further though. Child porn involves a child being abused before it gets to your machine. To crack a piece of software you need to take software written by someone else and modify it to avoid paying the author. It is based o a legal framework of intellectual property, which I don't agree with, but at least it looks like a valid framework of property rights in general. This proposal also covers software that you write yourself. It is also totally arbitrary, because it doesn't even try to pretend that you are violating someone else's rights.
It depends a bit what the proposal looks like. You have to submit papers about your energy use to authorities when you open a business, it could just be that businesses asking for significant energy to run a server cluster has to say that they aren't doing crypto. That would mean that private people can still run their own crypto mining.
But still, crypto mining is such a niche use-case, preventing me from running a file sharing server I wrote myself since people use it to distribute IP seems much more intrusive to me.
But still, crypto mining is such a niche use-case, preventing me from running a file sharing server I wrote myself since people use it to distribute IP seems much more intrusive to me.
That sounds pretty much like other business regulations, and is not too intrusive in my book.
There is another point about abundant regulations helping Europe capture yet another brilliant opportunity to complain about foreign companies monopolizing everything, but in case of crypto mining we might be in a low risk area
There is another point about abundant regulations helping Europe capture yet another brilliant opportunity to complain about foreign companies monopolizing everything, but in case of crypto mining we might be in a low risk area
[deleted]
Energy consumption is not an environmental problem (whatever you use said energy for, be it Bitcoin mining, heating your home or powering your massage chair), and all policies that try to limit energy consumption are basically building on quicksand and doomed to fail: the world has and will continue to consume increasing amounts of energy by capita.
And anyone who's being an activist towards reducing energy consumption is completely deluded: energy consumption is strongly correlated with technical progress and civilization progress. Good luck putting an end to that short of reverting to the stone age.
Energy production is what needs to be fixed, specifically energy production that results in environmental damage, e.g.fossil fuel.
For reference, this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o claims that a million square km of the Sahara desert receives enough energy from the sun to power the entire human civilization needs in 2020. Solve the technical problems associated with solar energy production and you'll solve global warming.
Infinite clean solar energy lets you filter CO2 out of the atmosphere back into carbon using technology, something plants have been doing to aeons.
And anyone who's being an activist towards reducing energy consumption is completely deluded: energy consumption is strongly correlated with technical progress and civilization progress. Good luck putting an end to that short of reverting to the stone age.
Energy production is what needs to be fixed, specifically energy production that results in environmental damage, e.g.fossil fuel.
For reference, this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OpM_zKGE4o claims that a million square km of the Sahara desert receives enough energy from the sun to power the entire human civilization needs in 2020. Solve the technical problems associated with solar energy production and you'll solve global warming.
Infinite clean solar energy lets you filter CO2 out of the atmosphere back into carbon using technology, something plants have been doing to aeons.
Perhaps leaders have found the problem of scaling energy production intractable. Perhaps partial stone-age reversion is an acceptable solution. I'm seeing lots and lots of support building for efforts to reduce meat consumption.
Ah, the electricity police strike again. You're allowed to use the electricity you paid for for some computations, but not for others.
Seems logical and enforceable.
Seems logical and enforceable.
Some governments even force you to put insulation on your home or they won't give you a permit to build it! And then they only let you install an energy efficient furnace! And evil EU even forced appliance manufacturers to stop selling inefficient washing machines!
The EU has a long history of regulating energy waste, and outlawing crypto is a logical next step.
The EU has a long history of regulating energy waste, and outlawing crypto is a logical next step.
> Some governments even force you to put insulation on your home or they won't give you a permit to build it!
And then they point at the "evil foreign/investor buyers" when people complain of the exorbitant house prices.
And then they point at the "evil foreign/investor buyers" when people complain of the exorbitant house prices.
Thank god governments exist to decide when I'm using my own money too wastefully. Funny how the portion of my money they already took and spent is never spent wastefully in their eyes.
What is energy waste though? If I get more happy by mining Bitcoin than playing computer games, is it okay for me to use the energy I would have used for playing to mine instead?
I think that about 95 % of the activities that humans do professionally are a complete waste of time. Does it follow that I should be for banning these activities?
I think that about 95 % of the activities that humans do professionally are a complete waste of time. Does it follow that I should be for banning these activities?
Just like rifles. Surely there are things that could be done if we start thinking about the problem space.
You might consider changing 'rifles' to 'gun-control'. The movement against rifles, when looking at the problem space of preventable gun deaths, is political optics.
Don't mean to take a side here, but just because a rule sounds hard to enforce doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect in practice. People will often change their behaviour out of sheer societal pressure if something is explicitly banned, even if the ban is not enforceable. Saying "our society does not want/accept this" already accomplishes something, regardless of enforcement.
An example would be the banned disposal of certain substances in residential solid waste or sewage systems.
Well, yes.
Please furnish a comprehensive list of your uses of electricity. We'd like to go through it and see which of them are wasteful. We'll let you know which ones you won't be allowed to do anymore.
Sometimes I pre-heat my electric car before removing the ice on the windshield because I'm a bit lazy and a prefer to wait until the ice has melted. I hope it's fine.
Otherwise I don't think I have a very wasteful usage of electricity.
Otherwise I don't think I have a very wasteful usage of electricity.
> Otherwise I don't think I have a very wasteful usage of electricity.
Well, of course you don't think it's wasteful. But that's irrelevant. We're talking about putting the power to decide what's "wasteful" in somebody else's hands, maybe some appointed judges somewhere in the government. It doesn't seem like you want to put that power in my hands, though. Still waiting for that list. I'm ready to dictate which of your activities are worthy of electricity.
Well, of course you don't think it's wasteful. But that's irrelevant. We're talking about putting the power to decide what's "wasteful" in somebody else's hands, maybe some appointed judges somewhere in the government. It doesn't seem like you want to put that power in my hands, though. Still waiting for that list. I'm ready to dictate which of your activities are worthy of electricity.
Power network neutrality is inequitable.
It may be better to tax activities considered harmful for society, and subsidize those considered beneficial.
For example, Microsoft, Facebook and Google data centers are deemed appropriate use of renewable energy in Sweden and are thus subsidized.
However, will there be sufficient renewable energy available for Swedish citizens in the long run, with continued data center build outs?
For example, Microsoft, Facebook and Google data centers are deemed appropriate use of renewable energy in Sweden and are thus subsidized.
However, will there be sufficient renewable energy available for Swedish citizens in the long run, with continued data center build outs?
The bigger "problem" for Sweden's power production is the modernized "fossil-free" steel production which will require (at least) a 50% total capacity increase over the coming decade or so. Data centers are a drop in the ocean in comparison.
Does anybody have any real scientific insight into the idea that PoW based Cryptocurrencies can harness energy from far away places that is already being wasted?
We currently need to send most of traditional energy to our households, cars, manufacturing facilities etc. This cost of transportation to me is the key difference.
PoW doesn't need this. Imagine putting some mining rigs in orbit near the sun and harnessing the already abundant solar energy. All you need to send back to earth is a few bytes.
I know this is an utopian future but overall the idea of a people's currency is quite important for society, not just for speculation. Most of us I assume are tech people living privileged lives developing software for super rich companies in places with stable currencies and governments. We should realize this is not the case for many people - especially in societies where people cannot trust their countries' government or currency.
We currently need to send most of traditional energy to our households, cars, manufacturing facilities etc. This cost of transportation to me is the key difference.
PoW doesn't need this. Imagine putting some mining rigs in orbit near the sun and harnessing the already abundant solar energy. All you need to send back to earth is a few bytes.
I know this is an utopian future but overall the idea of a people's currency is quite important for society, not just for speculation. Most of us I assume are tech people living privileged lives developing software for super rich companies in places with stable currencies and governments. We should realize this is not the case for many people - especially in societies where people cannot trust their countries' government or currency.
Crypto mining, specifically. Title needs to be updated.
Yeah, Sweden has an extensive ore mining sector. I expected to learn about the energy efficiency of different mining techniques, would be really interesting.
Extra specifically: Proof of Work cryptocurrency mining.
> Our conclusion is that policy measures are required to address the harms caused by the proof of work mining method. It is important that both Sweden and the EU can use our renewable energy where it provides the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
> Our conclusion is that policy measures are required to address the harms caused by the proof of work mining method. It is important that both Sweden and the EU can use our renewable energy where it provides the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
Energy-intensive crypto mining is accurate enough, proof of stake isn't energy intensive.
Judging by the comments here in this submission and overall on HN, not everyone is aware that different cryptocurrencies have different strategies for consensus.
For example, I've seen calls to action from a lot of HNers to ban all cryptocurrencies because they are destroying the environment, missing completely that PoS even exists and has nowhere near the impact on energy usage as PoW.
For example, I've seen calls to action from a lot of HNers to ban all cryptocurrencies because they are destroying the environment, missing completely that PoS even exists and has nowhere near the impact on energy usage as PoW.
Is ETH PoS yet?
Kinda. There are currently two chains that can be called "Ethereum" right now, commonly known as Eth 1 and Eth 2, and funds have started moving to Eth 2 via staking (currently the Eth 2 contract running on Eth 1 is the largest holder of Ethers on the Eth 1 network). You can use Eth 2 already, but can't transfer funds back to Eth 1 yet and the chains haven't been "merged" yet.
Didn't even consider it to be crypto, but traditional mining. Where there probably are some inefficient techniques and processes.
[deleted]
Same argument as against network neutrality.
The provenance (or "color") of energy use, the "social benefit" of it, somehow becomes criteria for discrimination of utilities and human rights.
The provenance (or "color") of energy use, the "social benefit" of it, somehow becomes criteria for discrimination of utilities and human rights.
Logical next step: mandatory spyware to monitor what kind of software you are running on your devices.
We don't want you using your energy for unapproved computations!
We don't want you using your energy for unapproved computations!
Crypto mining through PoW is already on the way out anyway, so no need to ban it. The market will shift to PoS once Bitcoin loses the top spot.
Good to see a goverment take a stance against individuals who choose to use the SHA256 algorithm without permission.
I hope to see more goverments prevent individuals from performing hash computations on their computers.
The hash function is a climate disaster.
I hope to see more goverments prevent individuals from performing hash computations on their computers.
The hash function is a climate disaster.
This setup is straight out of manufacturing consent.
Can you expand on this for me? I'm only loosely familiar.
Just force miners to use byproduct heat for heating. It's pretty cold in winters there.
The more crypto mining is banned, the better it is for Bitcoin. The more it is banned, less money is spent on mining which means transactions are cheaper and less CO2 is emitted per transaction.
Hard to disagree, the amount of energy and CO2 emissions are staggering especially considering how little you can actually do with the end product. Their "We therefore call for" section seems reasonable as well. I like that the article is concise, clear, and that the authors understand the difference between proof of work and other mining methods.
Interesting that they call it crypto-assets and never refer to it as a crypto-currency (not disagreeing; you can't use it to buy very much in Sweden, just thought it was an interesting observation).
Interesting that they call it crypto-assets and never refer to it as a crypto-currency (not disagreeing; you can't use it to buy very much in Sweden, just thought it was an interesting observation).
I think instituting a significant tax and using it to speed up transition to green energy is better approach, but enforcing would be problematic.
For a somewhat decent counter-argument to this pov:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-7dMVcVWgc
Better to just to slap a carbon tax on cryptocurrencies. The incentives are too big for miners but their end-users are just expecting it will go up in value forever.
Do it!
meanwhile crypto people, in less than a month, have coordinated around klima and bought 10 million tonnes of carbon offsets, about 2.5% of the entire worlds voluntary climate offset supplies.
https://twitter.com/Dionysus_Klima
https://twitter.com/Dionysus_Klima
Thankfully, crypto mining is adversarial so even if it is cornered into remote islands powered by the sun or nuclear powered siberian mines , it will still work.
I understand that "Climate crisis" is becoming the new "Children and Terrorists" wrapping for the next decades' wave of state oppression, but overall this ban may not be a bad idea for sweden and most of the developed world. Westerners being monetarily dependent on poor and otherwise forgotten countries will be a breath of fresh air.
I understand that "Climate crisis" is becoming the new "Children and Terrorists" wrapping for the next decades' wave of state oppression, but overall this ban may not be a bad idea for sweden and most of the developed world. Westerners being monetarily dependent on poor and otherwise forgotten countries will be a breath of fresh air.
> it will still work.
Technically, sure. But without sufficient network capacity, there won't be much demand for it.
Technically, sure. But without sufficient network capacity, there won't be much demand for it.
> without sufficient network capacity
like, today?
like, today?
Sort of, but exponentially worse.
Could not be clearer: either you allow Bitcoin, benefitting only a few miners and users, or you let society as a whole transition to a more sustainable future.