|
|
|
|
|
|
by MereInterest
1863 days ago
|
|
|
> either we play the game of picking and choosing whose use of electricity is less useful than others I keep hearing this argument from bitcoin enthusiasts, and I don't understand why this is a bad thing. Electricity for heating, for cooking, for entertainment is constructively used. Cryptocurrencies are the only case I know of where electricity is deliberately used to the minimum possible effect, with verification that that was the case. The only benefit is the thrill that people get by using them to speculatively gamble. A utility isn't an end goal, but rather in order to enable some activity from it. Utilities are provided such that they can enable some benefits to society. Using a utility in an unexpected way that benefits society is a fantastic thing. Using a utility in a way that is not beneficial to society, and that prevents beneficial uses of that utility, then it is perfectly reasonable to restrict usage. In this case, since monitoring for cryptocurrency validation would be indistinguishable from productive high-electricity usage, a better solution would be to target the exchanges, to remove the incentive for cryptocurrency validators to waste electricity. Cycling through other currencies would then be treated like any other form of money laundering. |
|
|
It could be argued that straight resistive heating is inefficient compared to using a heat pump, so on, it might not be that legitimate
> for entertainment
You don't need to use electricity to entertain yourself. Worth, why would you entertain yourself when you can think relentlessly about the betterment of Peoplekind.
> a better solution would be to target the exchanges
Crypto don't need exchanges to survive.
> Cycling through other currencies would then be treated like any other form of money laundering
Then Wall-Street traders would be the first to go to jail. Soros made his fortune betting against the british pound.