I have a shocking proposal that may seem too good to be true:
1) Stop subsidizing fossil fuels. [0]
2) Tax carbon emissions.
Bonus:
3) Incentivize clean energy.
[0]: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
443 karma · joined September 25, 2020
1) Stop subsidizing fossil fuels. [0]
2) Tax carbon emissions.
Bonus:
3) Incentivize clean energy.
[0]: https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-fossil-fuel-subs...
- If the state needs to borrow or raise money, it can still do so. It will make an offer to the capital market. These were previously called "war bonds".
If the reason for failure is hyperinflation, then it is a pretty concrete pattern relating to a debt crisis.
> Why?
Because state monopoly over money is not a free nor fair, and leads to an eventual weakening of money.
Some things take a long time to fail, but will undoubtedly fail. There are numerous examples of failed fiat currencies in modern times and ancient times. Just because dollars, euros and yen survive now, doesn't mean it will survive forever.
The core reason for this is simple: humans are bad at decision making in groups. Economic policy becomes sensitive to election cycles, populism, partisan agendas, etc. Every economic recession becomes a dire problem to be solved with state intervention. Every economic expansion becomes evidence of good policy decisions that emboldens some economic theory, convincing people that good times can continue indefinitely with the right policies.
The rules for that govern economic systems SHOULD be concrete, they should not be subject to human opinion so frequently. But we find ourselves pushing the edges of what amount of debt is acceptable, or how inflation is even measured.
The rules for money should be transparent, mathematical, algorithmic.
How do you "destroy" Bitcoin?
But a deflationary asset has utility, and ironically central banks will want to hold it as a reserve asset. They'll just be the last ones to do so.
State monopoly over money is a good thing or a bad thing?
> If you remove that power, the state itself has no legitimacy.
We've had "legitimate" states since the dawn of time, before fiat currencies. Many kings and republics ruled and minted coins, but they were always limited by what they had, and could not arbitrarily create more.
The Bitcoin network does exactly what it functionality sought out to do. The human speculative layer on top of it is what's confusing you, because the nature of monetary goods is confusing. Your dismissal of it shows your unfamiliarity with what money is, and your unwillingness to learn.
So when you call for a ban of Bitcoin in the name in environmental concerns, you've decided to be the arbiter of energy usage, on what is productive and valuable, and what is not.
You're welcome to argue your points, but it would still be far more efficient and productive to addresses the actual core problem: coal fire plants, and energy prices.
This makes investments in renewable energy infrastructure more profitable and paid off sooner. A solar farm has more demand and higher margin for its products.
On the other hand, it means cheap coal energy is also financially productive.
What is anti-economical is the unfair price competition due to externalities not captured by coal energy's pricing.
You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you should be able to distinguish the difference.
Today you probably consume more energy in a few days than your ancestors whole lives.
Now, we've created distributed, immutable property, something that has never existed before. It turns electricity into value storage. What is the "correct" amount of energy for humans to spend on such a thing?
Subsidized coal mining and untaxed carbon emissions are dangerous ideas.
So which of the following is most likely:
- the government has a tool that can break private key encryption and used it to confiscate a hacker groups funds
OR
- whoever controls the groups wallet transferred it out and is on the run
If you need to me to clarify it: the scale and rate of progress in EV was severely accelerated by Tesla. ICE auto companies had no incentive to develop electric. The space was unprofitable, had many technical challenges.
Do you think Tesla would be where it's at today if Musk didn't get involved? How many times did Tesla almost die?
We'd be waiting another 10 years for what we have today.
If enough people leave a contentious network, the price falls. If you decide to use another chain, exchanges/wallets/miners become profit incentivized to support those chains.
Confused about what you mean by "take control" of the new fork.
The powerful miners are going to download a different set of software with different rules, and mine on it? That would just be supporting the new fork by participating on it, giving it more legitimacy by way of giving it resources (hash power).
*EDIT: You can certainly attack a chain by dedicating your hash power to sabotaging their blocks. This however would make your own chain weaker, and generally not a profitable use of resources.
You can't just "increase mining rewards" as a miner.
Crypto groups do not have this authority, and cannot impose their will beyond what the masses will accept. They compete with forks and alternative products. Some chains don't even use mining, some use alternate algorithms where SHA-256 ASICs have no advantage. If powerful groups try to force unpopular change, they'll just split the chain and more or less divide the value proportionally to the user-base that they can convince to join them.
We saw this with Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum Classic, etc. So if the Bitcoin network does something I don't like, I have the option of leaving and supporting one of the potential forks I do like. Force cannot be imposed, and products must compete. This is one of the advantages of open source, decentralized software design.
Monetary goods / store of value assets are especially open to interpretation. Is a $100m painting worth really worth $100m? Is gold really worth $2k/oz? Shrug.
- The last people to cash out are called bag holders.
- There is a difference between good assets (AAPL, Bitcoin) and bad assets (NKLA, Doge), however the market is free to speculate in between.
- Regulation is required to ensure that markets are fair.
- The kids pumping Doge will probably lose their money sooner or later. Or maybe Doge just becomes a permanent thing. Who knows.
Hmm, you should look up the price history of Bitcoin.
It crashes a lot. And every time, it recovers to eventually put up a new high several multiples higher.
Bitcoin is still only 10% of gold's market cap. It still has room to grow.
Home price to income ratio: https://www.longtermtrends.net/home-price-median-annual-inco...