I'll step over and forgive the personal attacks because I'd like to think that I've refrained from doing the same with you.
> Large-scale hydro is major ecological harm. And even for something less damaging, that's still massive energy use that could be used for something else. Bitcoin is displacing other activity.
Sure, but you or I don't get to decide how people spend their time, or where they focus their activities. And you also didn't address the fact that this needs to be compared, apples-to-apples, with the mining of conceptually similar assets like diamonds, rubies, gold, etc.
> especially given your tendency to treat your personal feelings as objective fact.
Actually I'm arguing the exact opposite; that value is purely subjective. Just like you, I myself don't derive much value in Bitcoin (something we agree on!). The point I'm trying to make is that just because you and I don't find value in it, doesn't mean that the value doesn't exist. My entire argument here is that my personal feelings don't matter, and importantly, neither do yours.
That argument of subjectivity is a lot more uncomfortable for people because it means that you have to just sort of accept that some people see value in something that you don't. That's the idea I'm trying to convey to you. The only objective fact is that everything is subjective.
The Diamond-Water paradox isn't some "feeling", it's a real economic theory that attempts to explain the exact question you've been grappling with. You've been asking all the right questions, they're just questions that have already been asked before when dealing with conceptually similar assets (obviously not "the exact same").
> I don't get the impression that you understand value at all
Oh you've more than made it clear that you have this impression. You just haven't done the best job explaining to me why that is.
> If you actually aim to learn, you could start with the Lean look at value; they write some pretty accessible stuff. But I'm done here.
I'm more than happy to learn! But you'd have been better off in this conversation if you spent less of your time attacking me or expressing indignation at the mere fact that I'm making my points and more of your time making the specific case for why the Subjective Theory of Value doesn't hold or what the "Lean look at value" is and why it's compelling (I'd even believe you if you fully articulated it).
Please don't do this sort of tit-for-tat flamewar on HN. I know it's extremely difficult not to get sucked in (believe me, I know), but when the comments get to this stage, the path of curious conversation was abandoned a long time ago. We're trying for something else here.
> Large-scale hydro is major ecological harm. And even for something less damaging, that's still massive energy use that could be used for something else. Bitcoin is displacing other activity.
Sure, but you or I don't get to decide how people spend their time, or where they focus their activities. And you also didn't address the fact that this needs to be compared, apples-to-apples, with the mining of conceptually similar assets like diamonds, rubies, gold, etc.
> especially given your tendency to treat your personal feelings as objective fact.
Actually I'm arguing the exact opposite; that value is purely subjective. Just like you, I myself don't derive much value in Bitcoin (something we agree on!). The point I'm trying to make is that just because you and I don't find value in it, doesn't mean that the value doesn't exist. My entire argument here is that my personal feelings don't matter, and importantly, neither do yours.
That argument of subjectivity is a lot more uncomfortable for people because it means that you have to just sort of accept that some people see value in something that you don't. That's the idea I'm trying to convey to you. The only objective fact is that everything is subjective.
The Diamond-Water paradox isn't some "feeling", it's a real economic theory that attempts to explain the exact question you've been grappling with. You've been asking all the right questions, they're just questions that have already been asked before when dealing with conceptually similar assets (obviously not "the exact same").
> I don't get the impression that you understand value at all
Oh you've more than made it clear that you have this impression. You just haven't done the best job explaining to me why that is.
> If you actually aim to learn, you could start with the Lean look at value; they write some pretty accessible stuff. But I'm done here.
I'm more than happy to learn! But you'd have been better off in this conversation if you spent less of your time attacking me or expressing indignation at the mere fact that I'm making my points and more of your time making the specific case for why the Subjective Theory of Value doesn't hold or what the "Lean look at value" is and why it's compelling (I'd even believe you if you fully articulated it).