A few days ago people on HN were arguing that it's okay if cryptocurrencies use a decent fraction of the world's energy, because securing the blockchain and building a financial system that is decentralized and impossible for any human to gain control of is a major project for humankind and worth spending a decent fraction of the world's resources on.
Does that argument still hold up if you're going to have human insurance and human arbitration?
> Does that argument still hold up if you're going to have human insurance and human arbitration?
I think it does. You don't need human arbitration, but there are so many cases where having it makes people more likely to transact.
Similarly, a hotel can put up a rack with brochures in the lobby, or can hire a concierge to smile and interact with guests as they walk by. The purpose of the concierge is to create more transactions than would have happened with a rack of brochures.
As for the question in the previous thread, I'm not sure if it's worth the energy expenditure or not, but predictions are that energy will cease to be scarce by 2030 or so.
Does that argument still hold up if you're going to have human insurance and human arbitration?