Hacker News Reader

Comment by gruez | Hacker News Reader

Not any different than dumping massive amounts of cyanide into the environment so we can get some shinny yellow rocks.

That doesn’t make it better. Both are bad.

You and the GP are in agreement with each other and in disagreement with the OP's claim that Bitcoin created this perverse incentive--the incentive to externalize pollution costs has its origins in the Bronze Age or sooner. Bitcoin is further exploiting this incentive.

Why do people find it necessary to argue like this? As if we can't solve ANY problems until every single problem is solved.

The parent noted a similarity. They did not argue for inaction or acceptance.

Edit: For example, it could be interpreted as an argument to be more mindful of gold extraction externalities.

My beef with the statement lies in "not any different". Having qualities in common doesn't preclude differences. In this case, there are differences.

Gold is quite useful industrially, however. Last I checked, you can't coat wires with Bitcoin to make them less prone to oxidation.

According to[1], "technology" demand (eg. not for jewelry, investment, or central bank reserves) is only 7.5% of total demand. Your response only excuses a small fraction of the pollution being generated from gold extraction.

I should say there's also 48% used for jewelry, but that doesn't really make a good excuse either. The pollution is necessary because ... people need to display their wealth?

[1] https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/gold-supply-and-demand-sta...

Bitcoin is also quite useful industrially, that is not the problem.

The thing is, it's not.

Gold has not been the basis of any economic system for about a hundred years.

Yet investments/central bank is responsible for 44% of total gold demand.

https://www.gold.org/goldhub/data/gold-supply-and-demand-sta...

A hundreds years?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com