That's an incredibly dangerous idea.
Subsidized coal mining and untaxed carbon emissions are dangerous ideas.
This makes investments in renewable energy infrastructure more profitable and paid off sooner. A solar farm has more demand and higher margin for its products.
On the other hand, it means cheap coal energy is also financially productive.
What is anti-economical is the unfair price competition due to externalities not captured by coal energy's pricing.
Why not focus on the source of the electricity rather than what the electricity is used for?
> proof-of-waste
It's Proof of Work. Productive work has value and in this case, it's widely distributed censorship-resistant validation of transactions.
Today you probably consume more energy in a few days than your ancestors whole lives.
Now, we've created distributed, immutable property, something that has never existed before. It turns electricity into value storage. What is the "correct" amount of energy for humans to spend on such a thing?
Perhaps the "correct" amount is less than what it would take to increase planet temperature by 4°C?
You're equating energy usage to carbon emissions, but you should be able to distinguish the difference.
As long as we're using fossil fuels, planet temperature does in fact have something to do with energy consumption. You seem to be arguing that because renewable energy sources exists, Bitcoin has nothing to do with fossil fuel emissions. However, that is false, as 8% of Bitcoin mining happens in Inner Mongolia, which is home to many of China's large coal mines[0].
[0]: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bi...
So when you call for a ban of Bitcoin in the name in environmental concerns, you've decided to be the arbiter of energy usage, on what is productive and valuable, and what is not.
You're welcome to argue your points, but it would still be far more efficient and productive to addresses the actual core problem: coal fire plants, and energy prices.
> a bunch of aircraft carriers and planes and bombs and people with big guns, which gives the ability to say (credibly) that it is a crime to forge dollars no matter who you are or where you live
Cryptocurrency offers all this and more for a fraction of the price.
It's good that Ethereum is moving to proof of stake. Not because of some environmental impact though. Mining is just really expensive, it results in huge fees making the coin almost unusable for normal people.
Even better, how much energy is wasted per page view due to inefficient frontend web frameworks?
Seems to me that code is speech, and restricting what one can and can't do with silicon that one owns is absolutely ridiculous.
> Current estimates put bitcoin’s energy requirements at around 130 terawatt-hours (TWh) annually, which would rank it in the top 30 electricity consumers worldwide if it were a country.
Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/bi...
This concern over the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies is utterly laughable when you figure out the real source of these problems. I guess they're just too powerful to be messed with.
Well, some environmental activists try by turning off oil valves[0], just like environmental activists are upset with Bitcoin.
> You have big entrenched organizations such as the oil industry doing far more damage.
People who criticize Bitcoin for its environmental impact don't give a pass to oil companies. The issues overlap, like in Texas where they plug Bitcoin mining rigs straight into the oil well[1].
But I hear you. All big entrenched organizations must be held accountable. Of course.
[0]: https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/companies-dec...
[1]: https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/bitcoin-mi...
People who want to see real change need to deal with fossil fuels. Taxing mining operations will do absolutely nothing to solve the actual problems of this world.
there's every incentive for it to keep growing forever, which is what makes it dangerous
vs. there's only so much ice cream people can eat
I don't think this applies to laws. In fact, I'd claim the opposite. Laws are something you REALLY want to get right
If we won't legislate it now, it's possible we won't get a chance to do it later thanks to bickering from lobbyists and fossilised laws and practices. See IPv4.
Banning PoW cryptocurrencies is not a big enough priority for anyone that it will be a motivating factor to move past the other issues surrounding the climate debate, especially not anyone on the side of "don't do [thing] to fix the problem". I don't see any other mechanism by which it makes passing other climate legislation harder.
Banning PoW cryptocurrencies removes money that is currently on the side of "don't pass climate legislation because it will harm my PoW cryptocurrency business" from the table. That makes passing future legislation easier.
In general, trying to solve all the worlds problems at once doesn't work. It's too complex, you paralyze the decision making body with too many tradeoffs. When something is obviously bad, banning it immediately not only has the effect of meaning it's gone immediately (and doesn't hang around until you solve the whole problem), but it simplifies the remaining problem for the decision making body. This makes them more likely to come to a consensus on exactly what to do in a finite amount of time.
Does it? And, do you have data that backs this up? It stands to reason to me that PoW miners only want cheap power; they don't really care too much how it gets generated. Considering that the cheapest power source you can build out today is green energy, it sounds like a win-win to me for them to put their money into "advocate for more cheap power."
But that’s exactly what the law should do...
The question was about how to choose who is using too much and how, and the response was basically "don't think about it, we will exist in the future and can think about it then." But we exist now. And even if we were to wait, it's still a question we can answer now to have enacted later. The response provided was a bypass, a non-answer.
Instead, they explained why these questions are (partially) misguided.
That's also an answer.
Because that is what always happens. Every time someone make s a general proposal, for any law at all, there are people making the same old, dumb argument, of "well who decides?!?" Every single time.
Sure you do not believe that all laws ever are wrong, right?
Because the answer to this dumb question is the same as for every law ever. That makes it valid, unless you believe that all laws ever are bad.
There are absolutely many laws, that are very targeted and specific. Were you unaware of this?
For a random example, there are laws that probably say something like "A truck, of this size, must follow these specific environmental regulations".
That would be a specific law, that applies to a truck, and required it to do a specific thing, like have a certain mileage efficiency, and it is not general. It is pretty specific, and it is not a general law that applies to all environmental related things.
The world is full of many specific laws, all over the place.
once again, you have merely just assumed the role of arbitor. What makes this opinion better than the opposition?
What needs to be addressed isn't energy usage, but the cost of energy in the first place. Why isn't the fix be passing a law to tax carbon properly? Tax the externalities, and the rest would follow. I don't care if people burn up energy for crypto, as long as they pay for the cost properly.
This is literally the role of legislators. What makes "my" opinion better, is in the event that this sort of legislation passed, the majority of the elective representatives in both houses agree we should ban proof of work crytpo currencies, nothing less, nothing more.
> [alternative proposal]
I mean, I happen to like this proposal too, but you haven't given any reason not to do both...
So while carbon pricing would be a more ideal solution, OP is suggesting that a targeted ban on POW crypto is a good-enough bandaid that might actually pass.
Nothing about the opinion is better than any other. But the only thing we have to achieve is that it is a majority opinion, which frankly doesn’t seem all that hard to me.
Don't address of any the things that you are proposing need addressing, because they don't need to be addressed in the same law, or really addressed right now at all.
The law doesn't need to try and anticipate the actions that occur in the future, we will still have a legislature in the future capable of addressing the future when it comes about. The law needs to address the actions of today.