Hacker News Reader

Comment by errantmind | Hacker News Reader

Your response lacks nuance.

The supply 'increases' are already growing negligible as the current supply is 18.6mil / 21mil. Yes, it will continue to offer miners rewards, but that is cut in half every few years. People also lose their keys quite frequently. It is hard to estimate, but at some point 'misplaced' crypto will surpass the amount generated by block rewards, making it deflationary in a literal sense.

Also, 'holders' are not paying miners. Miners make money from transactions, as well as block rewards.

As for your stated preference, it is your freedom to avoid cryptocurrency, just don't obstruct other people's financial freedoms.

View on HN

The vast majority of miner profits come from "mining" new bitcoin, mostly using fossil fuels. These are then sold on the open market.

There's a reason that in GAAP accounting, when a company issues new shares (dilution), it is recorded as a loss to the equity stockholders in the income statement.

I see you didn't bother to respond to the point that people have always been better off saving than consuming.

Bitcoin's cost is wealth destruction. That energy could be used for something with a real payback - housing, infrastructure, healthcare, technology - but is instead burned with nothing to show for it but extra carbon emissions and some landfilled junk gear.

Have fun destroying the planet.

I didn't respond to that particular point because you are erroneously conflating saving with investing. Inflationary currencies gear economies towards 'growth' which is understood to be good but, without guidance / direction, this leads to frivolous spending, bubbles, and massive waste. How is this good for the environment?

With a somewhat deflationary currency, an 'investment' worth putting money into has to be worth more than the money is appreciating in value. This cuts the fat as you have to be more picky as an investor, and banks have to be more picky as a lender. However, right now there is virtually no reason to save in this sense, you must throw your money at assets like equities or real estate to keep your purchasing power. You must feed the machine, so to speak.

I think you'll find your argument on the wrong side of history when it comes to saving the planet from climate change. We need a drastic reduction in general consumption and waste while we work to reverse the damage we have done and find much more efficient means of production. We aren't going to get that without a total reversal of monetary policy, alongside strong fiscal incentives for climate conservation. It is far-fetched, but possible for a cryptocurrency to achieve this.

I agree to disagree, but I appreciate the measured tone and willingness to engage, which isn't what I've come to expect from from bitcoin advocates.

I'd be happy to chat about it orally sometime; email me at ben@bencreasy.com if you're up for it.

I'll admit that growth, especially absent pollution pricing, is often negative for the environment. But unchecked population growth without tech-driven economic growth isn't great either, as one can see from numerous countries. To win in the marketplace, one often has to do things cheaper. Excessive profits or inefficient processes are more burdensome for the environment. It shows up in mansions, jetsetting around the world, etc. Investment in new ventures attacks this problem.

Investment funds innovation and meets real needs. Inflation which forces people to invest is good. India is country where the people are heavily overweight gold instead of real investing. I believe it has reduced their national prosperity, in the same way bitcoin will reduce global prosperity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com