Huh? That's not the President's job; how did we get to this point?
If the President can ban a specific, commonly used algorithm for arbitrary reasons, then we are in for a wild ride.
If the President can ban a specific, commonly used algorithm for arbitrary reasons, then we are in for a wild ride.
But just to be clear about your wishi washy argument:
It's not arbitrary when they state a reason.
And it's not just some algorithm.
I'm also not sure what a difference it makes if you do something manually or a computer automatically if it's harming others you should be able to ban it.
Like the action of moving your hand very fast into the face of someone else.
Or consuming a lot of energy to guess a random text string faster than others.
Btw. You should also advocate against Bitcoin. The chance that the climate change from Bitcoin is hurting you more than the benefit of Bitcoin is very high
And if you made bank thanks to crypto, feel free to accept that jlyou only took the money you have now from others.
One way or the other Bitcoin is garbage.
And yes every crypto bro who exchanges crypto back to Fiat is not believing in crypto either.
The plan isn't "banning bitcoin".
It's to consider regulation on high-energy usage crypto operations, and then "should these measures prove ineffective at reducing impacts, the Administration should explore executive actions, and Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining."
It's unclear why you think this shouldn't be the Administration's role? If it is taking a significant proportion of power across multiple states and affecting power prices and grid stability it seems like it should at least something one branch of the federal government should have an interest in.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/treasury-secretary-yell...
They will probably defer to the EPA, who will make a regulation based on their suggestion. This allows them to bypass congressional oversight at least until someone very rich manages to bring the case in front of the supreme court. Extremely common unfortunately.
And also change the constitution right?
Of course it could imply that it needa to go through certain channels but no one should assume that it literally meant 'the president will now say x and now x is the law'.
We’re only talking about executive action because congress isn’t interested though.
Congress has delegated broad authority to the President with respect to energy, environment and financial services.
Honestly, would Congress itself even have that power?
That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said:
>... commonly used algorithm...
Which is exactly how coins are mined! Which makes OP correct (sort of, they said "President" and not "Congress") because your own quoted comment says:
>... Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining.
> That phrase was not in OP's post, yet you're quoting them on it and then excoriating them for saying something that they didn't. They said:
It was in their post when I responded and they edited to correct it. The edit window for my post has expired though.
It's obvious that the money streams are under control of the state.
Your sentiment indicate that Bitcoin should be okay because why exactly?
The country doesn't want crypto that was and is clear since ever
And I also brought this point up for the last 5 years.crypto is solving a problem people like you think they wanna solve without understanding that it's on purpose how it is.
It's nothing to be fixed.
Crypto may be wasteful nonsense and no real solution to anything. But that no reason to ban it, when we accept that capitalism allows vast amounts of wasteful behaviour in many ways, so long as people are prepared to pay the market rate for their wastefulness.
If a government is elected with an explicit policy of a hard crackdown on wasteful energy use, it would surely have to extend way beyond crypto, and certainly affect those cooling mega-mansions and heating private swimming pools - but potentially even limit the power/performance of gaming hardware, domestic appliances, and power tools, amongst other things. But that's not what's happening here.
IMHO, the post-Covid world needs to somehow look past its tribalism and rediscover the importance of freedom in it's many forms, and also look back more critically at the Covid response and related events around the globe.
Covid has shown that there's a very high demand from an easily-terrified populace for centralised authoritarian power during a crisis. It has also shown that when that power is exercised, the resistance is likely to be minimal, and crushing that resistance causes little backlash beyond small outbursts of online anger.
We now face a perpetual crisis - the 'climate emergency'. And we should all be concerned about attempted solutions imposed by such centralised authoritarian means, and even more concerned about things done claiming to be about the climate, but actually being ideological in nature.
I think education was.
It's hard to discuss 'freedom' when people prefer the opinion of anyone besides experts.
I never ever saw meaningful discussions on covid were people were arguing certain papers and statistics.
So the state actually did what it should do: protect their people.
Yes we do need to discuss ALSO further Energie eaters.
The point here is that Bitcoin is new, doesn't add any value but in contrary is circumventing the existing and on purpose installed finance system.
Blocking Bitcoin now doesn't hurt anyone while ac etc. Might be harder to enforce.