Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by s73v3r_ 2908 days ago
"As the activity it is certainly valuable to ensure the validity of the blockchain."

Not at the cost that it currently takes. Personally, I ascribe far, far, far less value (if any) to any cryptocurrency mining compared to using the energy for other stuff, or not using it (and not having the mark up on graphics cards).

"but I think eventually it'll settle down to some stable level that is acceptable to all market participants."

The "market participants" would only be those mining crypto, though.
2 comments
apr 2908 days ago
Ah, but "personally" is the operative word here, other people obviously disagree.

> The "market participants" would only be those mining crypto, though.

Not only them. All people who would use bitcoin in some capacity and benefit from it, they all would be participants in that market. Miners could not exists without them, in the end of the day they get their pay from packing transactions into blocks, no transactions - no pay.

link
s73v3r_ 2908 days ago
Except this stuff doesn't happen in a vacuum. Them deciding to waste a whole bunch of energy on something like cryptocurrency has very real effects on everyone else.
link
jacobush 2908 days ago
Ah, but you see their right to do what they want with what they own is holy you see. Can't touch that. That would be blasphemy, which is punishable with spending more of your tax dollars lobbying for stronger property rights and the state machinery to back it up.
link
throwaway37585 2908 days ago
> Not at the cost that it currently takes. Personally, I ascribe...

Based on what? And if people aren't getting value from using the blockchain, why are they using it?

> far, far, far less value (if any)

Can you put a number on that, and justify it?

link
lmm 2908 days ago
> Based on what? And if people aren't getting value from using the blockchain, why are they using it?

It creates value for individuals at a bigger cost to society - a classic negative externality. Making drug dealing easier is immensely profitable and that's where all blockchain profits eventually come from - everything else is a smokescreen of intermediaries to create just enough deniability to let respectable business participate in the drug trade. It's just like outsourcing manufacturing to countries with lower environmental standards to profit from pollution (another example of something that's negative-value overall, but positive-value for the individual engaging in it).

link
throwaway37585 2908 days ago
> It creates value for individuals at a bigger cost to society - a classic negative externality.

In what way?

> Making drug dealing easier is immensely profitable and that's where all blockchain profits eventually come from

Do you have a source for this, or is this just what you believe?

link
lmm 2907 days ago
> In what way?

Suppressing the drug trade is evidently something that society puts a high value on, given how much society spends on it.

> Do you have a source for this, or is this just what you believe?

Just looking at the whole blockchain ecosystem as a black box: any profit has to eventually come from outside, the rest is just moving that around. Speculators can move value around but aren't creating it. So who are the people getting something actually valuable in the real world from blockchain? I mean sure there's a bit of money laundering and evading capital controls, but the big one is drug dealing.

link
s73v3r_ 2908 days ago
"Based on what? And if people aren't getting value from using the blockchain, why are they using it?"

You're assuming rationality. You're also assuming they're actually paying for the electricity. And you're forgetting that they're not paying for the negative externalities of their energy waste.

"Can you put a number on that, and justify it?"

Take the smallest number you can think of. Now, take a number smaller than that.

link
throwaway37585 2908 days ago
> You're assuming rationality.

Then explain why the people using bitcoin are being irrational. Are the miners processing transactions and receiving fees in return being irrational? Are the people using bitcoin to send and receive funds being irrational? Please enlighten us (and them, apparently).

> You're also assuming they're actually paying for the electricity.

They are.

> And you're forgetting that they're not paying for the negative externalities of their energy waste.

Classic case of moving the goalposts. The same applies to any economic activity requiring the use of electricity.

> Take the smallest number you can think of. Now, take a number smaller than that.

Dodging the question, I see.

link