I'm genuinely glad crypto enthusiasts spend more time defending their position than they do being as obtuse against fiat as this comment is towards crypto (in my opinion). If they were as unnecessarily hostile, I imagine it might sound something like this:
It takes nearly half of the US budget with their military to secure the USD value by destabilizing poor countries and exploiting them for their crude oil, which is the most traded commodity in the world by fiat. In relation it's trivial to dissociate your identity from crypto you own, making it impossible for someone to prove you have crypto to steal, even with a gun to your head. All secured by harmless nerds using fractions of a percent of the worlds electricity usage, which doesn't even begin to approach the electricity the military utilizes from even a single one of the largest militarized nations.
It's obvious to me that neither of these are honest positions to take in a debate about the benefits and costs of these classes of assets.
I've had this conversation in the past, but our military doesn't exist just to stabilize the USD. The USD is one of the tools the United States uses to exert control over other markets and to stabilize US markets in general. That goal exists independently of what currencies are involved.
Even if the USD vanished completely and Bitcoin took over, there is basically no reason to believe that the US military would go away or that the US would stop interfering in foreign markets. And banking regulation/enforcement would just switch to targeting exchanges/platforms, blocking specific coins, and move on.
Independent of the whole cryptocurrency thing, there are good reasons to want better payment methods that give people more freedom/privacy, but "this will dismantle the military-industrial complex" isn't really one of them. Last I checked, there's nothing in the Bitcoin protocol that says it can't be used for bribes, oil, or guns.
It's just a wild fantasy. Imagine going back to the Cold War and thinking that if the USD wasn't around that the US and the Soviet Union would have stopped building nukes.
>The USD is one of the tools the United States uses to exert control
Why should we "exert control"? Maybe if folks didn't think they needed to build a bunch of aircraft carriers they'd stop building coal plants.
We should adopt a second strike nuclear policy, decommision our silos, and shift to an array of submarine and other movable launchers for a smaller set of nuclear weapons rather than the old cold war model, now that we live in a multipolar world.
Which is like saying "That family is spending 52% of the money it doesn't spend on rent/mortgage, food, and fuel on guns and ammo." Doesn't really tell you a lot if you don't know how much they're spending on rent/mortgage, food, and fuel.
Also, discretionary here is entirely a political/legal term.
I think one would find it very hard to argue that military spending is discretionary for any major nation in the layman sense of that word, even if the US's military spending is beyond control (on the flip side, the US also gets much less value for its military spending relative to say the value China gets for its military spending).
This is one of those things where it's very general.
The value of a national currency is a reflection of the rest of the world's confidence in that nation to meet its obligations. The money is essentially a marker for future goods and services.
The US military's reason for being is to protect the US from other nations, thereby keeping the US's resources available for its own use, its citizens capable of performing services, etc. It is also used to secure US interests abroad. Having its current resources, a populace capable of processing those resources, and the ability to acquire more is the reason the rest of the world is confident in our ability to provide future goods and services. A marker for US resources is a solid bet. That marker is called the US Dollar. Ergo, the military's job is to secure the dollar.
That's the rough train of thought that leads you to claiming that every dollar spent on defense is a dollar spent on defending the dollar.
Right but just like every square by definition is a rectangle, that does not also imply that every rectangle is also a square.
How would thousands of computers spinning in circles computing useless sha hashes protect your national borders, coasts, and other physical assets, resources and people?
I'm not defending the position, I'm explaining it.
And it's not the defense that's the issue, it's the money spent on the defense that they're comparing. They're saying that while crypto may cost $X to support, it's less than $Y where $Y is the total expenditure of the US Army.
The proponents are making a fallacy that's a little hard to explain, basically mixing up a measurement/indicator with a cause. This comes up in a lot of places, because it can be difficult to tell when the fallacy is happening and when it's not.
For example, Linux has fewer desktop viruses written to target it than Windows, which is a big part of why it can be a good security decision to use Linux. And genuinely, regardless of the reason, Linux desktop environments do tend to have fewer viruses targettng them.
However, the reason why Linux has fewer desktop viruses is because it's not the OS that most ordinary people use, so it would be incorrect for people to say, "Linux should be the dominant OS for everyone because it has fewer viruses." Because if it was the dominant desktop OS that everyone used, it would have more viruses. Primarily targeting Windows is an effect of malware authors wanting to target as many people as possible. But Windows is not the cause of them writing viruses, they are not writing viruses because they want to target Windows, they want to target people and they use Windows to do so.
And in the same way, in theory yeah, you could look at something like Bitcoin and say that it's not being used in the same ways that the USD to fund certain actions/industries. But to argue that Bitcoin is a better currency because it doesn't get used to fund military spending... The military uses the USD to accomplish its goals. The USD is not itself the goal.
Like you said:
> The value of a national currency is a reflection of the rest of the world's confidence in that nation to meet its obligations.
The US would still want to signal and defend that confidence in a world where it used Bitcoin. So really when we talk about the cost and energy use of Bitcoin, we're assuming that in a world where Bitcoin was the dominant US currency those energy costs would be in addition to all of the existing military spending and energy usage. Because when say that the US military is defending a signal of stability/confidence, it's not the signal itself that the US is defending, it's defending what the signal says.
> But to argue that Bitcoin is a better currency because it doesn't get used to fund military spending
I don't see anyone arguing that. The contrived argument I made was that USD requires a military to be stable. Bitcoin only requires proof of work. It's not a straight forward argument and I don't think it's quite a genuine argument because the US would have a military regardless (I think?) but it does stand to reason that without the US military the USD would not be the reserve currency of the world and therefore would not be nearly as stable.
Do keep in mind the context I proposed the argument was not intended to be a genuine argument, but rather an example of someone making a more all-or-nothing, bad-faith argument.
> The contrived argument I made was that USD requires a military to be stable. Bitcoin only requires proof of work.
I'm not sure I agree.
Proof of work requires a functioning Internet, functioning supply lanes for GPUs, low-ish latency, general consumer confidence in the chain, proportional miners to Bitcoin's value so that it's actually secure, etc... Not to mention that Bitcoin itself requires a lot more than proof of work to function as a usable currency.
----
Further, this is kind of begging the question a bit. Saying that the USD requires massive military presence to sustain is not the same as saying that Bitcoin requires massive energy to sustain, for all of the reasons people have talked about.
The fact that the USD military would still be around if the USD went away is the reason why the argument that military energy usage should be counted in Bitcoin's favor is a flawed argument. But if cryptocurrencies went away, we wouldn't need proof of work at all. That energy cost would legitimately vanish. And I just want to kind of jump back to that point, because if feels like there's kind of a weird slight-of-hand happening here.
----
The flow of logic we're following is:
- It's good that Bitcoin proponents otherwise play defense, otherwise we'd start talking about military costs of the USD
- Military costs of the USD are not dependent on the USD and likely wouldn't disappear if the USD went away
- Nevertheless this was just an example of a flawed argument, not a real argument
- ???
- Therefore, the arguments against crypto are similarly flawed.
But that doesn't follow. The fact that you can come up with a flawed argument for trying to use military costs as an argument for crypto, and the fact that we all kind of agree that it's a flawed argument, does not automatically imply that therefore all criticism of crypto is similarly flawed.
I intended for that to be an example of an obtuse, divisive argument - it is not an argument I'm actually attempting to defend. Sorry if I didn't make that as clear as I could have.
Was this intended on negating my comment about crude oil being used to establish USDs relative stability? Because I don't think this fact does anything of the sort, although it's still informative and interesting, I'm just not sure I understand the point you might be trying to make in this context.
It takes nearly half of the US budget with their military to secure the USD value by destabilizing poor countries and exploiting them for their crude oil, which is the most traded commodity in the world by fiat. In relation it's trivial to dissociate your identity from crypto you own, making it impossible for someone to prove you have crypto to steal, even with a gun to your head. All secured by harmless nerds using fractions of a percent of the worlds electricity usage, which doesn't even begin to approach the electricity the military utilizes from even a single one of the largest militarized nations.
It's obvious to me that neither of these are honest positions to take in a debate about the benefits and costs of these classes of assets.