If this happens, such a move would strike at the very heart of the crypto-asset economy, as the health-check mechanism to protect the network and blockchain transactions is at the core of bitcoin's existence. Nevertheless, the OSTP report had no immediate impact on the value of BTC. The largest digital asset has risen 10 percent in the last 24 hours. Cryptocurrency miners such as Marathon Digital and Riot Blockchain were also resilient amid improved investor sentiment toward cryptocurrencies and other risk-sensitive assets.
The woke European Union already banned BTC Mining a few months ago, then decided to delay that ban. Not surprisingly, right around that time there was a panic-push to switch BTC to PoS. Of course, all the hard-core maxis who despise ETH were horrified at this, and insisted to not do such an upgrade.
All wastes of resources contributing to heat death of planet and hastening the extinction of all life on the planet, enthusiastic adopters are same type of idiots that join cults
So long as by "what is better" we mean higher profits, that's a given! It's a reason we had sweat shops and child labor, which in turn is a reason for government regulation. The former is evil and the latter has a natural tendency to be overdone and/or corrupted by special business interests. Human nature makes a necessity out of good regulation, but good regulation requires good government. Both good regulation and good government are critically dependent on strong and universal public education. Living standards track closely the quality and universality of public education.
I do agree that corporations will do evil things, and the government clearly is easy to corrupt. But what I never want to do is give power to the government to make decisions for me. Its never a decision that the majority will agree with, but more so decisions that that their top contributors will favor. Corporations are evil, and pursuit of profit isn't the reason. The problem comes back to money, how money comes into the world, who gets to decide this, and how this money is divided. Call it a shameful plug for bitcoin, but if we separate money from the state, all of a sudden the incentives for everything change. I think that less regulation will be necessary if you don't magically give some people shit loads of extra money for nothing and incentivize bad behavior through all sorts of crazy laws, kickbacks, rebates, etc. Lastly, people in the world need to become more self sufficient. The government on purpose wants to get everyone hooked on government subsidies, and then in exchange for this support, they force your total surrender to them. Maybe the government breaks up a sweatshop, which sounds great, but in order to perform that task, they need to collect tax dollars to fund that agency. We clearly know the funding will mostly be wasted, and I'm sure that sweatshop probably got off the ground through some sort of corruption of government officials to begin with anyway. So is regulation helping or hurting? The fight against drugs has been an epic failure. The government incentivizes illegal drug production which is highly financially lucrative simply because it outlaws drugs. Why on earth am I spending so much money to prevent someone from putting poison into their own body? The government actually creates the incentive for the drug trade because of how much money there is to be made in the production and distribution of drugs. Another example is helping single mothers. Sure, it sounds great to say all those poor innocent, fatherless children need to be saved, but how did this situation arise? How are mothers making bad decisions about who they get pregnant from? Should all of society be responsible for a woman's bad decisions? Its like forgiving student loans. Why are tax payers who never went to school to get an education responsible for paying off the loans of someone who did go to school? The single mother epidemic is a result of failed feminism, and who is responsible for that? The more we "save the children" through a shit ton of government regulation, the more we encourage women to make bad choices. And it of course requires big governments to run the courts, collect the checks, distribute the money, and where money comes up short, raise the kid, on the dime of the tax payer. Women used to be fearful of getting pregnant from losers because they knew how difficult life would be, and so they were very selective about who they were intimate with. But now its almost cool to get knocked up and be a single mother, and how did this opinion get popularized? Does it have anything to do with the "you don't need no man" movement? Call me cruel, but tasking the government with solving people's problems just leads to more problems.
Speaking of feminism... how interesting how Elizabeth Holmes went from #1 feminist hero and tuff-girl attitude to.... we don't talk about her now.... to... oh she's a poor violated woman. Nothing she did was her fault as CEO, it is obviously a man's fault. Boo-hoo. I'm sick of this shit. Did anyone not seriously know she'd throw others under the bus when it came to her lies and bullshit? And as for every investor etc who said "We really wanted to believe her and make it work because she was a woman." WTF? So if the CEO is a man you don't? Those bankruptcy losses were 100% well deserved.
This is exactly right. Once you become red pilled, you actually see how pervasive this is in society. Its also interesting how right now, we have so many women in charge of major institutions who distribute money. I'm talking about places like BIS, IMF, Janet Yellen, etc. Even if we leave out the idea of who is better at managing between men and women, the fact is that women will feel more sympathy and want to give out more money. And the worse that the world becomes in terms of financial stability, the more they will attempt to fix the problem by giving money away. Its a major area of concern.
Thank you, NoahA, for a thoughtful comment and your views on what ought to be the respective role of the individual and the government. In your remarks I find much to agree with, but also a few places where I might disagree. I don't have time right now to respond in detail, but I would just say we should consider not only what seems perhaps like a lack of justification, inequity, or failure of some government policy, but also consider what the consequences would be of not doing what the government is doing. For example, if you don't think it is right for government to help poor mothers who made bad decisions when they got pregnant, consider what would be the consequences if the government did not help them? Answering that question may change your mind, or lead to suggesting a better alternative policy than doing nothing. Most of these thorny issues have nuances that may not be immediately obvious.