(no title)
stormbeta | 4 years ago
I don't think it's a coincidence that even a decade plus later, the primary use cases for crypto still seem to be grey/black market deals, speculative investments, and pyramid schemes.
stormbeta | 4 years ago
I don't think it's a coincidence that even a decade plus later, the primary use cases for crypto still seem to be grey/black market deals, speculative investments, and pyramid schemes.
abecedarius|4 years ago
The CO2 emission externality need have nothing to do with Bitcoin or any other proof-of-work chain. Tax carbon at whatever level makes sense and Bitcoin will adjust. (As I understand it, even currently Bitcoin mining mainly uses renewable energy, because it's cheaper; and it's trending cheaper still.)
The externality is at the power plant, not the use. Banning a use is like basing your server's security on client-side Javascript.
jsiepkes|4 years ago
> The externality is at the power plant, not the use. Banning a use is like basing your server's security on client-side Javascript.
How would that work? Applying the same carbon tax on farming as on bitcoin? You always need to differentiate on use. Otherwise we could also just have a single income tax and be done with it. However taxing food as much as a Ferrari doesn't really make sense.
Moodles|4 years ago
cwkoss|4 years ago
danimal88|4 years ago
gonehome|4 years ago
Interesting applications do exist: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24242005
Its applications are more interesting in countries that have unreliable governments and inflationary currencies (for now).
It also does provide something new (one way 'cash' transfers across a decentralized network).