Re: Excessively energy-consuming software considered malware?

[raingloom]

On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 14:06:07 +0100
Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:

> Attila Lendvai schreef op ma 21-02-2022 om 09:29 [+0000]:
> > let me add, though, that a more apples-to-apples comparison here
> > would be to compare Bitcoin to the FED, and PoW to the costs of
> > enforcing the PetroDollar system on the entire world.  
> 
> Here PetroDollar = US dollar and FED=US Federal Government?
> 
> > these costs not only include the direct environmental damages of
> > wars and militaries. more generally, it also includes the costs of
> > enforcing a certain economic structure globally, instead of
> > potential better alternatives for facilitating cooperation between
> > strangers that may very well promote peace and prosperity more
> > effectively and efficiently than the current system.  
> 
> If the US Government enforces the US Dollar with wars etc., then this
> seems more a bug of the US than a benefit of Bitcoin to me.  Also, I
> don't understand what you mean with ‘enforcing’ here.
> 
> Locally, in Belgium, I can use the Euro as currency.  The US isn't
> forcing me to use the US dollar, in fact I have never seen a US dollar
> in person and most (all?) local businesses accept the Euro as currency
> and most physical shops wouldn't accept foreign currency(*).
> 
> I can also use the US dollar as currency to buy from overseas (after
> trading Euro for US dollar, this happens automatically when
> e-shopping), even though the US hasn't stationed military forces
> at the banks to force the banks to allow converting Euro<->US dollar.
> 
> I'm not seeing any enforcement here, nor any need for enforcement to
> make the US dollar a usable currency.
> 
> While the US would (does?) wage wars to force countries to trade with
> the US (and perhaps force them to accept US dollar maybe?), I don't
> see how Bitcoin would change this -- Bitcoin might change the
> currency used for the forced trade, but not the existence of the
> forced trade.
> 
> (*) at least, I think so, I haven't ever tried.
> 
> > and from that perspective i don't see the use of 'absurd amount'
> > justified, by a large margin.
> > 
> > and the more some of us disagree with the above, the more
> > appropriate it seems to have been to use 'controversial morality'
> > by Martin.  
> 
> Greetings,
> Maxime.

For some reason, assholes like Peter Thiel (co-founder of Palantir
among others) seem to love cryptocurrencies, so maybe remember to
mention that next time in comparisons with the US government. I think
something about the total lack of regulations and customer protections
appeals to his ilk, but what do I know. :)
As Folding Ideas put it (paraphrased): the problem is patterns of human
behaviour, it's what people do to eachother, not that the building they
do it in has the word "Bank" written on it.
If you haven't seen it, I really recommend it:
https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g

I'd much rather see Spritely's OCAP money and LETS take off than the
"everything is a stock market" future that cryptocurrency fans envision.

Anyways, IMHO a blanket ban on blockchain based cryptocurrency in Guix
is not necessarily the best step to take, but I also don't think we
should welcome all such packages with open arms. But if others want to
ban some of them, I won't complain.