I don't see why it's ironic. Whether something is useful or not, and whether it's increases in value should be covered under financial taxes like any other commodity are separate issues.
So if you're saying its a commodity (and therefore should be taxed), it has value (and has to be based on something).
But semantics aside, taxation is theft, even more so in this case - there's no justifiable reason to hand over a portion of the gains to a government that had no involvement in the creation of the source of revenue.
No, not in the slightest.
Please keep generic ideological tangents off HN. They lead to angry-samey discussion rather than thoughtful-curious. Fortunately that didn't happen in this case, but then not all sparks lead to wildfires, even in a dry forest.