Topic: Do You Think Bitcoin Mining Will Be Banned Due to Fears of Climate Change? (Read 1036 times)

It's worth remembering that satoshi never talked about Bitcoin being an anonymous digital currency. The whitepaper discusses the features of a P2P digital currency for online payments. Bitcoin's use of a public ledger and transaction data that involves exact amounts being sent, sender, and receiver addresses doesn't make the asset anonymous. It would be if none of that is stored on the blockchain. 

It's private in the sense that the blockchain isn't showing this is John who is sending to Peter. But Bitcoin can be private, but you can't make many mistakes while using it. Running your own node is completely different from using SPV clients operated by unknown individuals who can see your IP addresses and wallet addresses. Using TOR to obfuscate your identity is different from using clearnet or Chrome. Not feeding your addresses in blockchain explorers is different from doing it. Cold wallet, offline signing, coin mixing, etc., etc. 

In my opinion, bitcoin mining cannot be banned until they ban the factories the are making mining rigs. I mean a ton of waste is produced by these factories. Imagine the computer chips, plastic, and a lot of the other parts that go producing enough to support entire mining rigs. Also why do people turn a blind eye to countries that are still running nasty coal plants that pollute the armosphere and instead turn to bitcoin mining that do not damage the atmosphere?

This is my confidence, because countries of the world are in problems and some are fighting one another. The war in economy and every aspect of competition. Anything US reject, China will likely accept. Anything China accept, US may likely reject. If one US bans bitcoin mining, you will see another country will accept mining to make sure that they are against US. With this, Bitcoin will either be loved by one country or the other.

The fact is, irrespective that we all like what bitcoin has to offers i.e making transaction anonymous, the need for a safer and better climate can never be over-emphasized, as that's one thing we all need to live a healthy life in this world. But however, in regards to the question about bitcoin mining, I think the possible decision will be that government should incentivize those still mining with fossil fuels to transition to clean energy, since Bitcoin has become a more commonnly used digital currency and in most case a legal tender to some countries (El Salvador and Central African Republic)  

Looking outside the box it could be noticed that it's not just the effect crypto mining is posing on the climate that is the root concern as it is claimed but the inability yet by government to regulate and make a centrality of cryptocurrency is just the area of concern. Else there are many technological operations and inventories that are inimical to the climate and just crypto mining, so what extend have they gone thoroughly to end or bring a way out from these other inventions except from the crypto ban they're focusing on.

I meant to say that it could become harder to acquire the proper permissions and licenses to begin or keep running a mining company. If you are the government, and you can't shut down a business because they haven't done anything illegal, so you have no basis to justify your actions, there are other ways to make life harder for them. Send your inspection dogs to pester them and fine them for various mistakes. Inspection officers are like teachers. If they want to fail you, they will find questions you don't know the answers to. Increasing taxes and fees are also methods to force people to reconsider if they should be involved with mining and is it affordable.     

Regulate altcoins and stablecoins all you want. Hell, ban them outright, since >99% of them are either useless, vaporware, or outright scams. But bitcoin does not need governments trying to stick their noses where they don't belong and dictate how it is allowed to function.

Sure, but there are regulations like "We'll apply capital gains for bitcoin except for transactions less than $1000" which encourage its usage as a currency, and then there are regulations like "You are only allowed to hold bitcoin on wallets which collect your KYC data and report it to the government", which do the exact opposite.

Bitcoin is inevitable because of how horrendously governments around the world have mismanaged their fiat currencies. We don't need those same governments trying to influence bitcoin.

It is true that bitcoin does not need regulation, regulation does not benefit bitcoin, but I think regulation will be the general regulation for the entire crypto industry. Do you think cryptocurrencies need regulation? with scams rampant in the altcoin market causing heavy damage to investors and the overall reputation of cryptocurrencies. If we want to be popularized and mass-adopted, regulation is inevitable. Regulations can be frustrating if they are too strict but let's look at the bright side, cryptocurrencies are getting bigger and crypto is inevitable.
CBDC is bound to happen like it or not, but I don't see CBDC having any effect on bitcoin, so let them happen.

It is already banned in some countries but some banned it for different reasons and not totally because of climate change nor btc is PoW. Not only btc but all cryptos are banned on them as well. Not all governments are the same.

If you live in a country with a more strict government then they won't give any consideration but ban btc and btc mining while for others, they will encourage miners to use renewable energy. If not then they will banned it as well but miners can't disagree with it since governments will also help them financially, so I choose the third option in the poll. On the second option of the poll, maybe you mean mining will be less in demand after it?

At least the UK isn't hysterically trying to ban Proof of Work mining because there would be no way to do that feasibly and not kill the dozens of crypto fintechs that are registered in the EU.

They are looking to regulate stablecoins and bring them more under their control. I agree with you. The first article shouldn't be understood as appreciation of stablecoins or crypto, or that the Prime Minister is saying: good chaps, just carry on. They want more control of the whole system that needs to answer to them. And most importantly, they are looking into how they can tax their subjects' crypto activities.

But the news seems to have had a positive impact on prices that are in green after a long time. Still, there is a long way to go before the bill becomes a law as they mention in the last paragraph of the 2nd article. 3 more steps.

https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/10/25/uk-lawmakers-vote-to-recognize-crypto-as-regulated-financial-instruments/

Not how it works. If mining becomes less profitable then some miners drop out, meaning mining becomes easier, meaning more profit for existing miners. It's a self correcting system which ensures that mining will always remain profitable at some level.

I'm not sure the links you shared are particularly good news for the UK. While it does make it seem pretty unlikely that lawmakers there would pursue an outright ban on bitcoin, talks of more and more regulations are unwanted. Bitcoin does not need regulated. Reading between the lines, it sounds like this is them paving the way for a CBDC.

I also don't think the EU will follow everything Big Brother says, national interests must always come first. What you are talking about is the new prime minister of the UK, Rishi Sunak, Rishi is the one who has stated that he wants the UK to be a crypto hub during his time as finance minister.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-sets-out-plan-to-make-uk-a-global-cryptoasset-technology-hub

And in one of the latest news today, UK lawmakers are voting in favor of cryptocurrencies becoming a financial instrument. This bill will be passed if it is passed by parliament and approved by King Charles III, the Bill will go into effect soon. This is very good news for the crypto industry.
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/10/25/uk-lawmakers-vote-to-recognize-crypto-as-regulated-financial-instruments/

Although it may look as if the most sensible answer, nothing happening wouldn't seem like a good one considering how progressive our society is slowly becoming especially when the welfare of our planet is being discussed. Lots of movements and protests may force large-scale mining operations to look elsewhere for energy resources or halt operations. The environment may also outlive the mining operations of bitcoin as it exponentially gets harder to mine a bitcoin the more bitcoins are mined. So, the most appropriate answer for me is the fact that sooner or later, it may not be sustainable to mine cryptocurrencies anymore as you spend more in creating a rig that would pass off as good and the profits aren't gonna be as great as it is.

Not surprising that they are really that loving on putting some emphasis on Bitcoin or crypto mining which they do really love to blame that it do really affects out major environmental issues without even trying to

look into those known problems mainly which is on pollution made out by cars and other factories or something correlated which do really give out big contribution on speaking with climate change.

This isnt only talking solely on one source but if we do really make some in depth then i dont see much relevance that mining do really give out big contribution in speaking about climate change.
They are just misleading out everyone.

It's good to see that most people think it's not going to really be a bother. I mean it's clear that there is a good amount of energy spent on mining, but that's not a bad thing, it's not about where we spend our energy, it's about being clean and having more energy.

World is not doing good for 2 reasons, one of them is pollution and coal mining or oil type of energy needs, even gas to a point, is not clean, gas could be clean if you take care of it with some filters though, meaning as long as the whole world is producing 10x more energy than we need via hydro, wind, solar and so forth clean stuff, and they do not put pollution out there like china does, then we should be fine, spending it is okay in that case.

I would say its an education and lobbying issue more than anything else. The average age of our Senate is mid-60s, with some Senators well in to their 80s. I think our oldest at the moment is 88. We have Senators who say they only communicate with their staff via hand written messages because they don't like technology, and seem proud of the fact they have never sent an email. And we expect such people to pass sensible laws regarding bitcoin and blockchain technology?

On top of that, most of our Senators on both sides receive campaign funding and donations from large banks and other financial institutions who have a vested interest in seeing that bitcoin does not succeed. Take a look at this data for example: https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=F. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars every year. And so they vote in the way that banks or other lobbyists want them to, so as not to bite the hand that feeds them.

I would say the biggest proponent of bitcoin in the Senate is Cynthia Lummis, who has tried on multiple occasions to advance sensible amendments or legislation, such as exempting all bitcoin transactions under $200 from capital gains tax. Not much progress has been made, though, given the majority of our Senators are as I have described above. I'm hopeful that as bitcoin continues to grow and develop, a steady trickle of Senators might actually take it upon themselves to learn a little bit about what they are trying to regulate.

China is actually smart. At least from their standpoint, why would they give away their monopoly on the control of their economy by allowing cryptocurrencies? Hello? We're talking about China's single-party system, full-on seeking to increase more authority here. From that point, any of their digital currency is not a real cryptocurrency as you said. lhrbeijing wants to believe those actions are for the people's own good but that's a bit naive. No, not China's CCP.

I expect any similar countries like China will pull the same thing. Talk about how it was to protect the environment and because of climate change but at the end of the line, to increase their control and slap down anything they consider a risk to their control of the economy. Especially in dictatorship countries.

What is your opinion about the outcome of those bills and proposals, setting aside personal wishes and subjectivity? Do you see a significant number of strong opponents in the ranks of the Democrats or Republicans, or is it more or less all the same? Are there more than just a handful of strong spines that won't bend with the necessary amount of pressure or incentive?     

The energy isn't wasted - it is being used to secure the network, which is a very useful application. I could just as equally argue that the energy used to allow people to watch reality TV is completely wasted, not to mention being a net negative for society, but I don't get to dictate how other people use energy that they are purchasing on a free and open market. Energy has a price. If you are willing to pay that price, you get to use that energy. Simple.

I don't disagree, but bitcoin mining is hardly on the same scale as open war with Russia. I'm sure I read in the last few months that some UK politicians were talking about making the UK attractive for cryptocurrency businesses, which is in stark contrast to the horrendous bitcoin related bills and laws currently making their way through the US government.