[TeMPOraL]

We seem to have a difference in base assumptions. I'd like to preserve and further the technological civilization. You seem to want to shut it down.

> the compound harm to the environment (for starters) of nations states existing and controlling currency

Do you believe that nation states exist solely, or primarily, to control currency? Currency is the blood of the nation, yes, but nation states form organically, to further interests of groups of people. Whenever you have more than a dozen people in one place, you get hierarchical governance, and the more people you add, the more that hierarchy grows vertically to cope with the load. With millions of people, you arrive at some form of states; add couple wars into the mix, and you arrive at modern sovereign nation states.

Point being, if cryptocurrencies were to break states' control over money - and what I guess you hope for - destroy states entirely, after lots of blood unnecessarily shed, the states would be back in some form. It's doubtful though, that cryptocurrencies would survive the process. They need computing and Internet to work, and computers&Internet need stable global economy to exist. Break the economy, break the supply chains, and modern technology evaporates.

Along with 90% of urban population starving to death.

> you should know you're rightly fearful of this technology, because it's going to play a major factor in your future demise

Yes, I'm fearful, because this technology is tuned in with the markets just well enough that it may propagate, whether governments want it or not, and grow to the point of burning out most of our non-renewable energy sources, with little to show for it, before someone finally puts a stop to it.

--

I've painted a bleak worst-case scenario above, but I sincerely hope cryptocurrenicies as we know today will fizzle out and be remembered just as another scam, one with absurdly large ecological footprint. I'm not against distributed ledgers, distributed consensus, or even new designs for money. I'm just against stupidly inefficient solutions exacerbating the biggest problems humanity faces.

[darawk]

I agree with your assessments of governments, but your assessments of power issues are pretty misguided.

You seem to be arguing that demand for renewable power will...make there be less renewable power available? Which is not really how economics works. Creating lots of power demand isn't going to make us like, run out of sunlight. It's going to raise the price of power. It's going to compensate people for building more capacity. It's going to do all the things that we want.

In fact, by providing a constant demand for excess power generation which is currently hard to store, crypto-currencies can substantially improve the economic profile of building out lots of capacity that otherwise wouldn't make economic sense.

[ruskerdax]

> We seem to have a difference in base assumptions. I'd like to preserve and further the technological civilization. You seem to want to shut it down.

Not sure where you're getting that from. I do not want to "shut it down," quite the opposite.

> Do you believe that nation states exist solely, or primarily, to control currency?

No, but control of currency is a major factor in their sustained existence.

> Currency is the blood of the nation, yes, but nation states form organically, to further interests of groups of people. Whenever you have more than a dozen people in one place, you get hierarchical governance, and the more people you add, the more that hierarchy grows vertically to cope with the load.

Nation states are a symptom of obsolete social organization technology. They result in massive human suffering and hampering of technological growth. Their formation, whether "organically" or not, is irrelevant.

> With millions of people, you arrive at some form of states;

States neither require millions of people, nor are they a necessary result of millions of people existing.

> add couple wars into the mix, and you arrive at modern sovereign nation states.

Is this intended as an indictment?

> Point being, if cryptocurrencies were to break states' control over money - and what I guess you hope for

Yes.

> after lots of blood unnecessarily shed

"Unnecessarily" is a large assumption. And ideally it would happen with as little violence as possible, preferably none. When contrasted with the scale of the crimes of nation states, however, it seems difficult to make a case for their continued existence, even with massive short term casualty.

> the states would be back in some form.

What are you basing this assumption on? I think there is a strong case that social organizing technology is likely to result in nation states being made obsolete over time. The contradicting viewpoint is not substantiated by much, I suspect.

> It's doubtful though, that cryptocurrencies would survive the process. They need computing and Internet to work, and computers&Internet need stable global economy to exist. Break the economy, break the supply chains, and modern technology evaporates.

Computing and networking are not dependent on the existence of nation states. A stable global economy is especially not dependent on them -- in fact, nation states are quite probably the largest cause of global instability, economically and otherwise. Preferably, a transition away from nation states happens using technology itself. Cryptocurrency is likely to play a major role in this.

> Along with 90% of urban population starving to death.

A sudden overnight collapse of nation states might very well lead to large deaths, although probably not at this scale. This is not likely to happen, and certainly not likely to happen as a result of mass cryptocurrency adoption.

> Yes, I'm fearful, because this technology is tuned in with the markets just well enough that it may propagate

I'm glad you've admitted your remarks about cryptocurrency being wasteful and harmful to the environment are motivated by trying to suppress its existence.

> whether governments want it or not

As opposed to free people...

> and grow to the point of burning out most of our non-renewable energy sources

Ridiculous.

> with little to show for it, before someone finally puts a stop to it

Good luck.

> I've painted a bleak worst-case scenario above

You've spread fear-based propaganda based on an issue you clearly have made a lot of seemingly fear-based (as opposed to reasoned) assumptions about.

> I sincerely hope cryptocurrenicies as we know today will fizzle out and be remembered just as another scam

You fear the change that this technology brings, so you hope it is suppressed and remembered for being something you (possibly) understand it is not?

> I'm not against distributed ledgers, distributed consensus, or even new designs for money.

These are the potential benefits of cryptocurrency.

> I'm just against stupidly inefficient solutions exacerbating the biggest problems humanity faces.

Even a grossly less efficient method for mining cryptocurrency would be preferable to the problems caused by the continued existence of nation states, and probably by their control of currency alone, not even factoring in all of their other crimes.

The biggest problem humanity faces is the existence of nation states, and the resulting democide and destruction, as well as potential existential threats of nuclear annihilation or other destruction. In the pursuit of perpetuating themselves, nation states are also likely major limiting factors in technological advance, which is the single greatest factor in preventing human suffering.