In defense of cryptocurrency
Most of Green&#x27;s article goes through, except for the answer to the &#x27;climate change&#x27; objection (Objection 1). Which is, of course, the most important, and without it, the article as a whole also fails to convince.<p>The problem is in this passage (mine the emphasis):<p>&gt; But the question we should be asking is not whether to be angry about the power consumption of proof-of-work mining. We should be trying to figure out the right path out of this mess. And more concretely, whether there’s a path forward which is more likely to produce *<i>a good outcome*</i> than what is already happening in the industry — namely, that projects are rapidly deploying cleaner technologies to replace proof-of-work.<p>1. What is a &quot;good outcome?&quot; A good outcome for whom? A great outcome for most species, and most h.sapiens, would be an outright ban, because of the risk spread.<p>Think actuarially:<p>There is always the possibility the crypto industry trends cleaner, but legacy chains will be around for yonks, and bluechip crypto is unlikely to ever move off PoW. This means that, yes, while there is a <i>possibility</i> the industry might trend clean, this is an emormously polite way of saying that the downside risk is both severe and likely.<p>Put another way: if you were selling planet insurance, and you found out they had a lot of PoW crypto going on but were thinking about maybe one day kicking the habit, you&#x27;d probably either charge them a fortune or tell them to take a hike, right? Think actuarially.<p>There is also a suggestion that banning mining (or crypto transactions) might just move the action to other jurisdictions. This suggestion seems strained: for while a coordinated international treaty or ban might make time to confect, it&#x27;s certainly not impossible. Powerful nations might, say, weave a crypto-ban requirement into multilateral trade agreements, like we already do for intellectual property.<p>A ban on crypto mining would likely be even easier to implement and spread, as most nation-states correctly view crypto as a threat to their command&amp;control. I mean, look at Ecuador.<p>Finally, banning crypto would also be something nation-states could take back to their populations as proof of progress on climate change. And they&#x27;d even be right.<p>As harsh as it is for a supporter of crypto (and former industry wonk and former whole-coiner) to say this, I&#x27;m sincerely beginning to think that the lasting value of this whole Blockchain Thing has been the thought it has provoked. I, for one, would never have had to think so deeply about the nature of value and currency.<p>But you know what? These days, I stick to fiat.