Bitcoin Forum

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgdb.rferl.org%2F892b0b2b-abeb-4906-9a04-18051f4d94ea_tv_w1080_h608.jpg&sp=d4168eb7c2b16562037ba5365022e1f1

I do! At first it may seems brutal for the forest, however it's 100% clean harvesting. They just pump water in the ground (having cut the trees before), the amber floats up, and it's done. The trees grows back. The end.

Proof :

https://s14-eu5.ixquick.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=http%3A%2F%2Fraw-amber.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F03%2Fklesov-bernstein-neue-grube.jpg&sp=64a1d57d8526271df6b7db5389385c5e

Btw in the land of chernobyl...

You cannot mine resources such barbaric methods. The price of amber is extracted in Ukraine is very low because illegal miners don't spend the money to restore destroyed forests. I think that the case for legalizing this business will lose their attractiveness.

5k$/kg not that bad. I don't see what's "barbaric" there. Very ecological in my view. And no need to restore, the trees do it by themselves!!!

The advantage of legalization is that it bring state security (no more gangs to pay for "protection" even if the mining is poor.

Anyway if you have more lucrative sources of income for the locals, they seem more than willing to work...

Yes, the legalization of this business will not be so demanded as it is now. The destruction of nature is not worth the pleasure.

You don't understand the problem. The forest itself is not restored. First washed off the top layer of fertile soil. There is only the clay in which the forest grows. Second to seat the forest you need to plant seedlings and not seeds. When amber over These villages will die out and there will be a desert.

I would if they well create or plant trees on those places. And as long the whole country is utilizing it not just one man or one entity. It's sad if it would be legalized but it does not help the country itself economically.

Yes, so they want to destroy the country by turning some of it into a desert. I do not like amber and such a barbarous way of prey.

Wrong there are no monsoon in ukraine, the top soil is just moved around with water... look at the second picture. Those trees are true fighters (continental climate - hot then cold). How did those trees arrived in the first place?

Either the government should set up firms to mine amber, or it should allow the miners to mine the resource without harming the environment. But they are not doing either of these measures. There is no enforcement of any kind.

Amber brings a very big money to corrupt politicians. There is a public firm that needs to produce amber, but she is in year produces less than underground miners mined a day. These corrupt is not profitable to legalize production.

Much as I prefer people find alternative that does not require destroying the landscape, I would prefer for operations to be legalized and regulated than let free miners just go in and wreck the place without being held accountable. I hope if they ever legalize it, they'd place a high standard on miners and make sure they only mine at pre-agreed locations and that they actually cover the land back and reforest it.

At least with this setup, you know who the miners are and can sue them for breaking the agreement as well as for any damage they might have made.

Yes, legalization of amber mining does not make sense. It will be too expensive and unprofitable.

So, these mining farms works illegally without any control? I think Ukraine have to legalize amber mining, but also they have to control these miners to avoid damage for nature. And if this amber is from Chernobyl region, is it safe and not radioactive?
And I'm not sure that there are big demand of amber in region. Russia mines lot of amber in Kaliningrad and export it to other countries, so there may be not many buyers of ukrainian amber.

No. It makes sense. Amber is a national resource of Ukraine, and each and every Ukrainian must benefit out of it. Not just a few powerful politicians and their cronies. The government must conduct auctions on amber mining sites and they should lease out the rights to private corporations. 

I think we have narrowed down 80% of world problems in this sentence xD

Yeah sure, cutting down a whole forest is ecological, and don't worry they just grow back by themselves. You got nothing to do it's just natural...

The ecosystem? The what? What's that shit? Bah don't worry it's easy the trees will grow back.

Because obviously the private corporations are the best at splitting wealth and redistributing it...

If they impose a 60% or 70% levy on the revenue from amber mining by these corporations, then the poor people of Ukraine are going to benefit out of it. Else, only a handful of the politicians and the goons are going to benefit.

I don't really get it...
If the government takes control of it it's bad because politicians will be corrupted...
But if there is a 70% tax on amber mining profits... Then it's ok?
That doesn't really make sense...

This is the best argument against legalization... as the ukrainian gov is too corrupt, they will ruin this business for the locals and only exploit it for their own interests. Or maybe the locals are now strong enough to fight the gov cronies.

The problem is that the syndicates that let the miners remove the trees before they grow back (;)) ask for the "fees" what ever the "harvesting" results are. Taxes are paid on income... but land lease have the same problems as the "syndicate" fees.


Effectively! It's called shares. You can get some by your work or by paying them and you get access to earnings if they are some. I know it's a foreign concept for the believers in work for a salary...


I shit your not! It's true. Forest grow back by themselves... it's the purpose of plants to seek for ground to fight for light. They are even plants growing outside on the international space station.

It's approximatively the same effect as a forest fire... only there more woods and plants are mixed with the soil during the amber extraction process.

And to the other poster i don't think amber has been irradiated from chernobyl has it's a fossil.

But then again it's fun to read a lack of understanding toward the dynamic nature of ecosystems. It's not a problem to harvest as long as it's possible for the harvested plants or animals to grow back. Which preserving the biological diversity and for animals social and cultural way of life.

Here in the case of trees, they are billions of those. It's a continentally (eurasia) endemic forests...

And again, compare it to say toxic waste disposal in forest... there it can kill life for a long time... in amber mining there is 0 source of pollution! Cut the trees (maybe sold the wood), dig, mix with water, and the amber float... the end. Ready for regrowth!  

If that was efficient the modern capitalistic world would be the fairest of all and USA would have no poor people...

AAAAAAAAAAH! So you mean it's LESS polluting than lots of other activities. That's probably true but that doesn't mean it's not ;)

Of course trees grow back, but you're saying that it will happen all natturally and without any effort from men. That's not totally true. Everytime you destroy a forest for example, it might regrow back, but there is a good chance that it will not. Ecosystem are incredibly complex and should be taken care of, if you come here and destroy half a forest it can regrow back but it could also destroy the equilibrium and lead to the disparition of the forest.

I agree that this activity isn't the worst, but we should still be very cautious. Cut down the trees, sell the wood, take the amber AND THEN PLANT TREES BACK! And check that everything is going smoothly, integrate some species back, control their developments etc...

When mankind destroys a whole part of Nature, sometimes it comes back easily and sometimes... Well sometimes Nature wouldn't refuse a little help ;)

With this tax, nobody wants to work. You will work for such conditions? What are they bad? Easier to bribe corrupt politicians and the police and let it remain as it is.

What is wrong in taxing a profitable venture? For example, in Russia the oil companies were paying almost 70% tax when the crude oil price was going at $110 per barrel. Even then, they were making huge amounts of profit.

Funny how you got some very good leftist ideas for a right wing psycho ;D

Don't get me wrong. I am against income tax. The maximum income tax rate which I support is around 15%. But in case of national resources such as petroleum and amber, it is different. The companies can have some profit, may be 10% or 20%. The remaining should go to the treasury.

Well someone else's hands raking fire. Then let the state and is engaged in extraction and sale of amber. Ukraine has already tried to introduce a 70% tax on gas production. This led to the fact that official production has declined, and began to flourish the gray scheme. Who will benefit from this?

Oh no... the state must stay away from amber extraction. Look at the government owned enterprises in Ukraine. They are extremely incompetent and inefficient, in addition to being filled with corrupt officials. And regarding gas production, it is not as profitable as petroleum extraction. The 70% tax rate was too high.

This is a new area for me, but seeing that clear cut is used it does environmental harm but less than other means of extraction for oil.
"Acres upon acres of forest are clear cut and backhoes are used to dig a channel to a water source—usually a river. Then thousands of miners descend on the Klondike and use water pumps made of old Mercedes van engines to blast into the ground, sucking water from the canal in huge tangles of pipe."

It does impact future oxygen production due to the time it takes trees to regrow and nature has to replant the area and the ground looks terrible afterwards like someone went to a warzone and bombed the area so it would be terrible for wildlife.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/01/illegal-amber-mining-ukraine/

But I would support some legalization I guess over illegal amber mininge but would be concerned about government corruption in the industry and over taxing.

In Ukraine, a lot of corruption. Even the President is corrupt. Therefore, all state enterprises are losing money, but the OIG bring millions of dollars to its Directors and policymakers who oversee them.

I know that corruption is very prevalent in Ukraine. That is why I preferred private corporations extracting amber after paying a 70% tax, rather than limiting the extraction rights to the publicly owned enterprises.

I support a complete ban on mining until the total eradication of corruption. What's the difference who steals money? Maybe it will be private companies or government officials. In any case, and now living and posterity will not see this benefit.

I agree with you - this activity should be completely banned and increased responsibility. Now there is a terrible situation, I saw a documentary about it. It kills nature. It is necessary to involve not the local authority but the international organization that will protect the unique forests

In all fairness I support anything that will help the Ukrainians stand up to the Russians. however seeing how this is eastern Europe some corrupt politician and his connections in the oligarchy will probably reap all the profits and export them to their Swiss bank accounts.

What we should support instead is altcoin mining in the Ukraine. Their electricity is dirt cheap and a cloud mining service there would dominate the whole market. In fact this could be a good idea for an ICO.

No. If there is a blanket ban, then no one is going to benefit. It the government allows and regulates the mining, then the treasury will be getting the tax revenues and the locals in these regions will be getting attractive jobs with good salaries.

But why should there be a company taking 10%?
Why should them have a cut of the profits if the work is done by the people?

Let the idea sink in ;)

All natural resources which are in the earth on the territory of a state belong not to the state, and people. Including our children. What right do we have to start to sell everything and leave our children without this resource?

This is a ridiculous argument. So what about petroleum? Do you want to stop the extraction of petroleum as well? If the future generations want amber, then they can easily purchase the already mined and processed amber. Why do you insist on mining fresh amber?

Actually the habited area around those amber field are experiencing an economic boom. Lot of new homes. Right now the biggest problem of the extractors is to have to pay crime syndicate for mining even if there is no find.

Once in the area will begin the production of amber on an industrial scale private miners will not be able to produce and after some time, the land in this area will be destroyed, and amber is over. Then what will happen to their economy.

Mining is always harmful to the environment, and in some cases, the local population needs to be resettled. But there are ways to minimize this environmental damage, and if strict regulations are followed then mining can be a very productive activity.

Initial capital acquisition - bitcoin mining?