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.

That's going to be an embarrassing point for them to look back to by the time the whole world uses Bitcoin in 2147...

Bitcoin has energy consumption, that's true. But it is very small, insignificant compared to other mining industries as you say. Those industries are created by them and they have control, but bitcoin is not. Even if bitcoin later goes completely to renewable energy, they will still find a way to blame.



That's what the government has always done, they never admit they're wrong, they'll always find a replacement to blame it all, unfortunately this time it's bitcoin. Governments are human too, just like us, once we don't like something and it hurts us, we find a way to get rid of it or destroy it. Bitcoin is decentralized what they hate most, their power comes from centralizing and controlling us. They don't want their power to be scattered or weakened by anything. If we let us become free, their power will collapse.

First of all, there is more to worry about when it comes to destroying nature than just Bitcoin. They always blame it on Bitcoin because it cannot defend itself.
How about the real mining companies, the physical ones. In Germany coal mining, a big one. In other countries, their waste, they don't want their trash to be in their vicinity so what they do is put it in a big box then send it away to other countries who will accept trash and recycle it. But included in that are other waste that cannot be used anymore or it's just too many to handle.
They should focus on that first before we play the blame game and using Bitcoin as scapegoat to avoid being investigated.
4. It will not calm down, they will keep on pointing all their fingers in Bitcoin so that no one will look at them.

I see some Bitcoin Miner now has moved to the green energy.
So about climate change is not real reason to banned Bitcoin Mining.

In some country energy electricity is surplus, that country have chance to legalized Bitcoin Mining.
So the electricity can be used and not wasted, also give them some money.

If we compare with PoS mining model, yes PoW have big issue about energy they wasted.
But that is price we pay for decentralization.
From time to time, i believe many miner will think how to use energy more cheap but green energy.

That is still a lot of work for government than headache about Bitcoin Mining reason Climate Change.
The fact Bitcoin Mining is only give 0.1% gas emission for the world.
https://finbold.com/bitcoin-accounted-for-0-1-of-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-2022-data-finds/

I don't think your concerns are pessimistic. In fact, very few countries in the world can achieve true independence. Governments in many countries listen to Big Brother.

I would love to see it. Maybe I am just too big of a pessimist but I don't see the EU going against Big Brother when it comes to big major decisions. That is, if we get to a point that bitcoin mining becomes such a huge affair for some reason. I have to mention the situation we have now with what is going on in Ukraine. If for some reason the US was pro-war and in support of Putin, I don't think the EU would be supplying Ukraine with weapons, munition, military vehicles, etc. to go against American interests.     

E-banking works fine in China, the e-CNY (China's digital currency) is still undergoing trial and development for over one year, and other forms of virtual or internet stuffs that the government can supervise and control are accepted in China, but it has to be the mining of the virtual currency that they don't control that gets banned. China themselves never said anything along the lines of what you are saying when they banned BTC mining, they made mention of 'enviromental safety' and 'money laundering' issues, both of which are lies too.
But the Yuan in itself is affected by inflation . Financial openess and freedom should be supported by any government that is not hungry to control the lives of her people. Nobody is forced to speculate with Bitcoin, it is an individual choice a person takes knowing the risks involved, BTC isn't only a speculative asset too but has more things it can be used for, it is also a source of income for miners.
Bitcoin has always been resistant to control right from its early stages. China or any other country can ban BTC mining, regulate miners, ban local banks from supporting BTC transaction, but they can't ban BTC or control the network or its hash rate, it is decentralized and collectively run.

That's not entirely correct. It depends on what kind of hashrate is "small scale mining" in total. If it is significantly less than the current level (eg. 20% of it) then bitcoin is in a big trouble because 51% attacks start becoming easy.
Besides the governments don't have to crack down on everyone, they only have to make it illegal for regular people to stop on their own out of fear.

Because Bitcoin mining is in no way related to this energy crisis(result of failed policies), a ban against it will in no way reduce any amount of consumption/ increase energy supply where it matters. On a surface level people just connect 2 dots Mining energy intensive + energy crisis(result of failed policies) = ban, but in reality no one can afford to invest heavily into ASICs while using some of the most expensive energy on the planet without going bankrupt already.

Mining goes where a lot of cheap excess energy is available, it isn’t taking energy from where it’s needed, because it would be too expensive to do so. The only places where mining is more profitable than providing energy to an undersupplied grid, are places where the market is completely distorted trough artificial government policies that make no sense in practice.

Just spending time talking about Bitcoin mining during an energy crisis(result of failed policies) should be a scandal in itself, because it’s time that’s taken away from implementing/discussing measures to actually solve this mess. But like pooya already said, it’s easier to find a scapegoat to blame everything on, than to explain to the public that this mess was the result of years of failed government policies and that they’re still unwilling to fix them. So distraction it is. Maybe the term crisis shouldn’t even be applied here, because it’s distracting from the actual cause.

But they’re not doing anything to fix it, all they’re doing is:

1. Printing more money during times of inflation and shortages to combat inflation and shortages - Makes the issues worse.

2. Implementing price and consumption controls - Price controls could bankrupt energy suppliers, or make the supply issues worse, depending on how it’s implemented; Consumption controls will probably lead to an over complicated legal framework that wastes months on implementation and has little effect in practice. Consumption controls for companies would lead to an increase in production costs and reduced output again - terrible for inflation, supply issues and the job market.

So we have a mix of measures that increase inflation, make supply issues worse or threaten energy suppliers and months wasted of finding complicated ways to micromanage people that already can’t afford to pay their energy bills and already started to reduce their consumption where possible, because they had too. When the only solution can be to find ways to increase the supply of energy, everything else is utopia. You can’t print or ration your problems away on a big scale. Yet we’re still seeing countries only talking about saving on energy, shutting down reactors and refusing to use politically unwanted technologies to increase their energy production, while at the same time messing up regulations for renewables like me and oleo already highlighted above. There is no fix in sight, i would prepare for inflation and high energy prices to be here for a while. On an individual level the only way out is to get as independent from centrally planned infrastructure as possible.

Bitcoin has nothing to do with how central authorities planned and messed up their infrastructure. Produce your own energy and use Bitcoin so you don’t have to be completely dependent on mismanaged infrastructure - that’ll probably bankrupt large parts of the population and puts their fate completely in the hand of government, if nothing changes soon.

Theft is already outlawed, a general ban of mining wouldn't be justified and doesn’t make any sense.

My understanding was the equipment was destroyed based on a court order, so it could very well have just been the opinion of a single judge. Given the (super effective ) Chinese ban on mining, if the Malaysian government had wanted to ban mining outright then I'm sure they would have done so.

Who's to say it doesn't go the other way? The US bans mining, and some European countries see an opportunity. They incentivize miners to move there on the provision that they set up near new and developing renewable projects, subsidizing the development of such projects by buying excess energy which would otherwise be wasted during periods of low demand, acting as a demand response system, and paying taxes on the bitcoin they mine.

Comparing the energy consumption of bitcoin mining to other innovation, it is lower than the others such as Aviation Industry, Marine Transport Sector, and Air Conditioners & Electric Fan (Source: CoinShares). Bitcoin mining industry consumes less total energy than other industries and it has more renewable energy. Bitcoin miners are starting to use geothermal and solar energy when mining.

I think that not much is changing in the near future when it comes to mining and clean energy sources. There are only a few countries who banned crypto mining and right now the world is focusing on other things than climate change. When it comes to climate change politicians are only willing to invest money and time when the economy is in a boom. And right now we are facing recessions and rising inflation rates. Fossil energy sources are cheaper than alternative energy, so a country can only afford to a certain extend to go green. Maybe at the end of next year things will go back to normal again and the world will focus more on climate change. But right now the focus is to reduce gas as much as possible and increase nuclear energy. Also crypto mining became very popular in the last 2 years, I don't think politicians want to anger voters even more.

bitcoin is mining.  without the miners there is no functional bitcoin.   and china has been stomping on the miners for awhile.   hasn't stopped them.  only stopped large scale mining.   bitcoin functions just fine with small scale mining.

Such measures don't happen over night, you are right. They are spread out over time and take years if done systematically. Let's say that's the direction the US takes, who could follow them? The UK is the obvious culprit. Maybe they get France on board and Germany. The last three are not that important in mining circles, but they are in global politics. Once you do that, politicians do what they do best. Intimidation, demands, blackmail...   

Oh, you want a loan to fix your economy? Well that is going to be difficult when bitcoin is being mined in your country. Maybe there is something you can do for us first...

Though that the government has been looking for various ways to stop or ban Bitcoin and its mining activities ,but I don't think at this stage of awareness and adoption of Bitcoin, that this is gonna be that easy for them to completely ban mining. Why?, This is because it's not gonna be easy to have a global ban on Bitcoin mining happen at same time. reason, this country may find reason to ban Bitcoin mining while the other country may see reason to adopt or see an opportunity to continue mining. Taking for instance,  China banned mining while US took the opportunity and Increase their mining firms.

It's not really the same thing, and it's not about banning your ability to send Bitcoin from one address to the other or from one person/country/continent to a different one. When thepiratebay.org goes down and if all their mirror sites go down, they are gone until someone brings them online again. You can't bring down Bitcoin in that way because there is no reliance on a single site/service/wallet etc. The way to take out Bitcoin is by attacking the technology and infrastructure that secures it, confirms your transactions, and generates new blocks. They might not go to those lengths, but it's the best way to achieve your sinister plans.

A coordinated confiscation of hundreds of thousands of ASICs is not something you can easily replace just like that. They are not jars of water that you simply fill up and put in place of the old ones. Even that would take some time. Those ASICs need to be manufactured first to replace the old ones.

Still, they wanted to send a strong signal by doing that. Seized goods can be auctioned off unless it's something illegal like drugs. The Malaysian government used the steamrollers as symbolism of what they think of the industry. Personal opinion, of course.   

many countries are still doubting or even rejecting bitcoin.
because there are many fears, to make bitcoin a currency.

Bitcoin miners are actually in my country sometimes their profits are monitored, maybe because they are afraid of that person's progress.

I hope that in the future governments will open their minds and hearts to look at or appreciate bitcoin.

It's unforgivable really that there will be excess electricity being generated while simultaneously there are planned outages and power cuts. Government incompetence at its finest.

This does tie back in to bitcoin mining being used as a demand response system for a 100% renewable grid as I mentioned earlier. If there is a surge in energy demand, you can burn more coal or gas, but you can't make anymore sunlight or wind for your renewable generators. So in times of excess, you have bitcoin miners working away, using up all the excess power being produced and paying the energy company for it. Bitcoin miners get cheap energy, energy companies don't have to dump excess energy and earn nothing for it, win-win. Then in times of high demand, the energy companies can pay the bitcoin miners to turn off their ASICs, allowing the grid to divert that energy usage to elsewhere so there are no outages or power cuts. Again, win-win. This is already happening successfully in Texas and elsewhere.

It was Malaysia, but the equipment was seized due to being run on stolen electricity, not because they banned mining: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/19/malaysian-police-steamroll-1point25-million-worth-of-bitcoin-mining-rigs.html

However, how can it be just virtue signalling? The problem of the costs and low supply is very real and it might destroy their economy. This is not a problem where the government can say it will fix without really fixing it. This is not a problem that they can ignore. They really need to fix it. Will bitcoin fix this?

Also, I agree that decision to mine and not to mine will be handled economically, however, for some miners, this problem might be a decision of to steal electricity and not to steal electrcity.

You are confusing "banning bitcoin" with "banning bitcoin mining". Nobody can ban bitcoin because it is decentralized and based on peer to peer network that can never be banned. But a mining farm that is extremely hard to move or hide which has a fixed location and relies on a bigger than regular household electrical source is easy to find and shut down.

They want to do the later. And they can easily do that in their own jurisdiction (not globally). For example a couple of years ago one of these Asian countries (I forgot which one) banned mining and then seized hundreds of ASICs. Then they used heavy machines (trucks, etc.) to destroy them in the middle of the street. That action didn't do anything to bitcoin mining as a whole, just in that country.

I think mining will not get banned because that would be quite difficult to enforce in most scenarios, besides even if mining gets banned in a country with an important concentration of hashrate, it would translate into a migration of that hashrate to somewhere else. I believe the governments in the developed countries will apply heavier taxes and restrictions to miners or push them to go fully green or carbon neutral in order to operate their mining farms.

Most of the enforcing agencies are aware Bitcoin cannot be stopped easily so they would rather to at least profit from the mining in their territories, while pushing to a reduction of carbon footprint.

Lemme know when they successfully ban The Pirate Bay.  you know the one,   that just keeps coming back.


When that happens.   then I might start paying more attention to people trying to ban bitcoin

Yup, ik about this. I don’t really include these cases, because we’re kind of dealing with distorted incentives here. In the beginning of the push for renewables the rates were actually pretty high, so even electricity that wasn’t really needed was given to the grid. And now over time we’re seeing the opposite development happening, abysmal rates and no incentive to really help the grid out.

It’s just another display of the brokenness of central planning that even during sky high electricity rates, it’s the brokenness of the planning that is preventing more energy to be put on the market, which be reducing prices for everyone to some extent. And even during crisis no adjustment has been made.

These smaller producers are not really given access to the free market the same way as the big industrial energy producers. So free market incentives can’t play out in this case, they should rather mine Bitcoin than getting severely underpaid due to the incompetence of government.

Time and time again, different articles have shown that mining is not harmful to the environment as most of the media tries to make it look.
If for any reason they are able to ban btc mining. It still won't change anything or make the climate more better, btc mining is one part, what about other sectors whose activities also contribute to environmental pollution, what will happen to them?

I think that the people who are worrying a lot about contamination are the ones who have previously done much more damage than those who are starting to do the mining exercise, everything was triggered by Elon Musk after having spoken so badly about Bitcoin, then awareness has been after the largest have torn the environment to pieces, currently only those who are doing mining are the most persecuted, by governments and now by environmental entities, if so, then those who have truly paid harmed the environment, which are not the ones right now, they have to be the others who have no conscience.

This is not always the case. Many jurisdictions and companies pay fixed rates for electricity that they buy from consumers, such as from household solar, and the rates are often abysmal - a tiny fraction of the cost the consumer pays to buy electricity. Often it will be more profitable to use any excess electricity you generate at home to mine bitcoin than to sell it back for a cent or two per kWh.

You sure about that? Want to compare the environmental impact of the US dollar, from printing, moving, handling, etc., through to the electricity for banks, call centers, ATMs, etc., through to the military industrial complex which is built around maintaining its status?

When you say costs, you are thinking of consumption. Like any technology that evolves and improves, future ASIC miners will provide more hash power with lower energy requirements. That's how you decrease total consumption.   

Not anymore. That's a thing of the past. Mining bitcoin is no longer allowed by the Chinese government. Big players have reallocated to the US, Russia, Kazakhstan, and other nations that can provide affordable electricity.

Bitcoin is already using plenty of clean and renewable energy in areas where that is possible. If not, like any other industry, mining companies will use what is available and what is cheap.

It is good to see that people are aware of the problems Bitcoin mining is causing and that the crypto community is looking for solutions to make it greener. It would be very important if Bitcoin miners would find a way to lower their electricity costs. However, one thing is for sure - Bitcoin cannot be considered the greenest currency out there.

If we look at the Chinese mining industry, where most Bitcoin mines operate, they must offset the costs of running their operations. Therefore, they have an added incentive to become a mini power plant.

The clean power they produce is fed back into the grid and sold as carbon credits to companies that do not have the ability to offset their emissions or purchase sufficient renewable energy credits. This in turn encourages all of these companies to adopt renewable energy or other carbon reduction or offset programs.

It looks like this is one of the attempts and a hot issue in the future to make it look much greener to Bitcoin miners now that renewable energy is becoming more affordable.

I'm not really sure the impact will be as complex as you describe, then mining shouldn't be allowed in the first place. The threat to the ecosystem being talked about seems only to scare the world into considering bitcoin as one of those things that is not environmentally friendly. Maybe the impact is true if all mining projects require electricity generated from fuel and coal, but I think the impact will be greatly minimized with renewable energy.

With renewable energy, I think the environmental impact is very much minimized and I think some bitcoin mining projects have adopted it instead of just relying on electricity generated through common energy sources like fuel and coal.

In today's world the use of Bitcoin is increasing, Bitcoin mining is increasing due to the widespread use of Bitcoin in other fields including Bitcoin investment.  Studies have shown that electronic waste will increase as the price of Bitcoin increases, and Bitcoin mining requires large amounts of electricity as well as fuel oil, which poses a serious threat to the environment.

A 2021 study found that the total energy required for Bitcoin mining is 1% of the total energy on Earth.  A group of researchers from the University of Cambridge conducted a study and revealed that Bitcoin mining consumes about 121 terawatts of electricity annually, which is equal to the entire electricity of a country.

In addition to all these negative aspects, Bitcoin mining is enough to pose a serious threat to countries that operate coal-based power plants.  Every day millions of tons of carbon dioxide are released into the air just for Bitcoin mining.  As a result, along with the increase in the temperature of the environment, the melting of the ice in the polar regions will increase the height of the sea level.  Due to this, the low-lying countries of the world will disappear under the sea.

Hence the harmful effects of Bitcoin mining pose a serious threat to our ecosystem.

For all that it's worth, they can all take a hike. They'll have to ban BitcoinCleanup.com first before they can stand a chance of banning proof of work mining. A little nudge by a former Ripple CEO isn't going to change anything.

It has always been easier for the politicians to find an scapegoat or a "bad guy" to blame everything on. In fact one of the reasons for the mass protests in Europe these days is that they have been blaming all the inflation and economical hardship on someone else (in this case Russia) to fool people into forgetting that they've been printing a shitton of money for the past 3 years and we've been warning about this day all this time. Now people see that lie so they revolt.

As long as the owners of Bitcoin addresses aren't known and the protocol doesn't require that we identify ourselves to a governing body (which isn't the case), governments can never stop face-to-face meetings and exchanges as well as truly decentralized crypto marketplaces.

I also voted for, government will force miners to use renewable energy to mine. Stopping bitcoin mining would be very difficult to do, and banning bitcoin outright wouldn't do them any good. I think they are trying to make it difficult for bitcoin because they simply want to manage it and will find a way to tax it. I think that's their end goal, they want the tax, they don't want us to go free with it without their permission.

Government officials can own their own businesses, and those businesses could include crypto-related companies. I don't think it will ever become an industry officially supported by the US or China. They can always have a hand in it through their influential corporate friends and business associates.

The sun is free, they can't charge you for it. So is the wind and the power that comes from those sources. Big corporations don't profit from free. That's why Tesla (the man, not the car company) wasn't needed after a certain point.   

And yet, they banned it. High energy consumption is never the reason. It's just the explanation that's presented to the public, among other things.   

Because the decision to mine or to not mine is already being handled economically by itself. Banning mining because of facing an energy crisis is virtue signalling at best.

1. It’s already insanity to mine Bitcoin from the grid in Europe with skyrocketing energy prices for both industrial and private consumers, it was unprofitable before and even more now.

2. If energy prices are this high it’s more profitable to give energy to the grid than to mine Bitcoin with it for energy producers.

It’s like a self-regulating system that doesn’t take energy from where it’s too scarce, so bans won’t solve anything again like in china. It’s just another example of the incompetence of central authorities to handle crisis. They rather just use it for blame games against unwanted technologies and use arguments that sound logical on a surface level to fool 90% of people. Taking the most incompetent decisions just to maintain an image of competence to the public. Wasting time on irrelevant to the problem issues, so the public can feel like something is being done, while being distracted from actual solutions to the problem. Almost like they understand psychology really well.

In the US there are pretty strict regulations about hospitals having back up generators or other sources of power in the event of power outages. Most critical equipment such as ventilators and infusion pumps have their own built in batteries, but for complex power hungry equipment these batteries might only last 30 minutes. Not to mention the chaos of being in the middle of a surgery when all the lights and electrical operating tools stop working. I imagine there would be similar regulations in the EU.

But yes, you make a good point. In the scenario of planned power cuts, then governments might start placing limits on what you are and are not allowed to use electricity for. Good luck enforcing that, though.

It's almost like bitcoin mining is completely inconsequential! Not to mention that in China a large proportion was using excess energy from hydropower which was otherwise being wasted during periods of low demand.

Bitcoin mining is prohibited because of concerns about climate change, I think it's just their trick to drop bitcoin, they used to say bitcoin is just a useless internet currency and fake internet currency, but after bitcoin proved to be a digital currency the most sought after by all circles now they are trying to slander bitcoin by damaging the environment, critics say the use of bitcoin energy is the main cause of pollution, actually myths like this are not true at all, in fact other industries also use electricity in large quantities very large, to provide their services,
The question is why bitcoin continues to be criticized while other industries have never been criticized?

Bottom line is some countries may ban bitcoin mining but it will definitely not be because of "fears of climate change" even if they insist on this being the reason. They will only ban bitcoin mining when they face an energy crisis which Europe and to some extent US are facing it these days which is why we are seeing an increased number of discussions about this matter!

It is worth mentioning that China banned bitcoin mining because they were also facing an energy crisis and it didn't solve a thing considering the fact that China's electricity usage continued growing like before, it didn't even have a small drop!

Within the interesting debate, I found an essential point missing, which was just mentioned by bbc.reporter and which was discussed yesterday in another thread on the subject.


The desire to cast Bitcoin in a bad light because of the PoW's energy use predated the war in Ukraine and the energy problems that Europe is facing, which not only consist of a huge price increase, but also the prediction of power cuts this winter.

The E.U. is preparing for blackouts this winter, amid an energy crisis

If you are talking about cutting off electricity in winter, it will be for what are considered non-essential services, as for example hospitals must have a continuous supply of electricity.

If the public authorities consider bitcoin mining not only non-essential, but an attack on their power, we know how this is going to end.

1. They might begin to try doing it more quickly not because of climate change, it might be because of concerns on energy shortages.

2. Yes and it will be through higher taxes and government makes it harder to apply for permits.

3. In Europe and in America, no hehehe. Why would they waste taxpayer's money? But they might do it in El Salvador. What are the updates on the bitcoin volcano?

4. This might be possible if costs on energy become low again.

Some countries started planning ban Bitcoin mining such as China while European country have their eyes on shutting down Bitcoin mining activity in belief that Bitcoin Mining greatly contribute to climate change.


Definitely, they will impose laws and regulations that will make mining Bitcoin harder.  They are finding a scapegoat for their fault on mismanagement of the environment that contributes to greenhouse effect and they see Bitcoin as one.  So they will put blame on Bitcoin, spread false information and trigger anti-Bitcoin mining mass rallies.


It is possible but I think since Bitcoin principle is against centralized fiat financial system, they will find ways to exterminate Bitcoin first, incentivize would be a second option if they failed on their first option.


It is possible if Bitcoin survives all these environmental controversies.  There is always a saying.. "if you can't beat them, join them"  Hopefully, Bitcoin will triumph all these hurdles and make the government realize the importance of the technology Bitcoin brings.

This is not an area where I am an expert, but I will try to provide some insight. Is Bitcoin mining contributing to climate change? Probably. There are definitely positives and negatives from the perspective of climate change, so it is hard to sum up a clear-cut opinion. But that does not mean Bitcoin mining will be banned anytime soon. While it may contribute more heat to our planet, so does the existence of these big institutions that hoard wealth. And we all know how entrenched they are in society at this point, regardless of what benefits they might bring (which in itself is debatable). If you are doing something wrong, there are always going to be people trying to fix it, or at least mitigate the damage. The problem then becomes one of accountability and sustainability, especially when energy sources like coal and oil are being subsidized by government entities who claim their environmental responsibility is not strong enough to lead the way into technologies like alternative energy or energy efficiency directives and standards. So, where does Bitcoin mining fit in? Probably a lot more controls and regulations, but not a full ban. When you ban something, you lose all control over it, and governments do not like that.

Whatever they try, won't be able to stop Bitcoin mining anyway. Yea, Bitcoin haters always raise a question about the energy consumption of Bitcoin mining. They don't want to mention any other things that consume more energy than Bitcoin mining which is useless. However they can't stop mining, they would prevent using energy. So miners have to move renewable energy where always many mining farms doing the same.

In my view, what will happen is number 4: all of this will calm down one day, Bitcoin will be left alone and world leaders will focus on other, more important things?
This struggle will continue for some time between governments and mining companies as governments will constantly try to put more pressure on mining companies and at the same time these companies will keep trying to find alternative solutions as long as mining is still profitable, governments will eventually give up and believe that they cannot stop Bitcoin and they will get busy with other problems.

I know governments may mine BTC if all of these happen, but the chances of them happening soon is small and for bitcoin to be used by a large number of the global population will take a long time before it will happen, not that it won't. If we hypothetically agree to all of these scenarios, do you think a government like that of the US or the CCP will mine BTC openly, even when they've 'openly' not supported either BTC or BTC mining all these years, or they are going mine secretly, another thing is, can we be sure some of these top government officials do not anonymously/secretly own BTC mining farms, they know what's good right .

Even though it was me who instigated it, I agree with you that we shouldn't go there. All I wanted to say was that those in power have the means to get the masses to believe what they need them to believe. That can be that you are sick and need to be cured or that your use of Bitcoin is the reason why polar beers will die out soon. I will stop further comparisons now.

I don't really understand how this issue will be handled and regulated by the government because I believe they want to have more control over the industry. It seems that the second point in this thread pool makes a lot of sense to choose from, and I dropped my pick right on it.

What happen? I think that's the government's way of preventing things they don't like and forcing companies to pay big profits to government without having to revoke their business licenses. Instead of banning, I would strongly believe they like to regulate, so there will be complicated procedures for bitcoin mining companies in the future due to government regulations.

I agree with the op that the attention to environmental impact of Bitcoin mining is way too high and considerations of banning it are way too common, while many industries are basically being ignored or not investigated enough. At the same time, I wouldn't say that calls to ban Bitcoin are even made based upon thorough investigations; instead they seem to largely rely on speculations, assumptions, lack of context. I think mining in the US won't become banned at the federal level, but perhaps some states would do that. As for the EU, I think they currently also have bigger issues, so I don't find a full mining ban likely. As for more regulations, making mining harder - unfortunately, I do think it's likely in Western countries, but it will be an issue only to miners who are currently in those countries, not to the network itself. Incentivizing clean mining is possible, but perhaps more likely as a part of incentivizing all or many of those who are currently on fossil fuels, not miners specifically. Finally, I think Bitcoin is already not the top priority but just one recurring topic that gets some attention from governments, and it's likely to linger on like that in the future, but without Bitcon being fully left alone.

Banning bitcoin has been on the lips of governments of the world and a few have dared to carry out this sentencing on the network but haven't been very effective to see it through effectively. This is given the fact as to how decentralized and free to air bitcoin is amongst the few who uses the network.

Before, there bone of containment has been related to untraceable fraudulent activities and now, climate change gives them an even bigger excuse to want to do away with a network they don't fully understand and can't control. Unfortunately, it's stil out of there control and no matter what regulations are put in place as humans, we would always fined a way! Unjust rules will always be broken and that's a fact!

I'm not going to derail this in to an argument about vaccines, but I would encourage people not to make this comparison when arguing about bitcoin's energy use. All evidence points to vaccines being safe and effective, just as all evidence points to bitcoin mining using an insignificant amount of electricity and using one of the highest proportions of green energy of any industry. But regardless of that fact and your own personal beliefs about vaccines, if you link arguments about bitcoin energy use to anti-vax sentiments, or anti-climate change sentiments, or any other fringe belief for that matter, then you risk sounding like a conspiracy nut and having your arguments dismissed without consideration.

It is enough to simply stick to the evidence. Spread the facts about bitcoin mining far and wide without drawing unnecessary comparisons to unrelated topics.

I will say this again, bitcoin mining never ever impacted anything into the nature. That’s the shit load of maths and anyone with formal degree can calculate it smoothly.

The paradox is that: We invented electric vehicles but we charge them with the electricity that was generated using coal and nuclear plants with nuclear waste being drown to the ocean floors.

. . . . If this this still not concerning to the nature then I am pretty sure bitcoin is way way cleaner than what we already doing or did since hundreds of years.

Bitcoin 10-12 years old and every politician in the world mastered that it’s impacting the carbon emissions just like that. Ever seen smoke coming out of bitcoin mining farm?
The heat that is produced from the mining farms is lesser than what is needed to heat up the entire Europe throughout the winter season and still they blame it for natures disturbances.

All the environmental protection stuff is cover up stories slowly being injected on the minds of people so that they can stop using bitcoin slowly and get into the traditional banking in full fledge format.

This is just complex and well planned agenda being plotted against Bitcoin and it’s usage.

“Bitcoin mining is still greener and still worth it as compared to the mess that we have done with industrialisation”.

Since when does the truth matter in circles that decide the course of action? If you have mass-media behind your back, powerful organizations, financiers, and politics, the truth can be bent to achieve a certain goal. Imagine trying to force the world's population to mass-inject a "cure" or "symptom reducer", for healthy people, lock them up in their homes, and prevent them to work and live freely? Now that would be crazy. But wait, why does that sound familiar and something that worked? 

But it's not a question about banning the use of dirty energy in mining and having mining firms switch to renewable energy. It's about banning mining altogether, no matter if the energy is clean or not. If something is banned/illegal, you can't transition to a different source. You might not get caught if you, that doesn't mean you are in the right in their eyes.

Like I said earlier, do voices and reports like the one you linked to get enough coverage on controlled media, are they considered in parliaments and senates, will they in the end be reasons why anti-bitcoin agenda will lose?

There are banks in the United States that can't go bankrupt ever no matter what they do. They worked out directives that make them essential and irreplaceable to the economy. If they become responsible for billions and trillions of dollars of debt and losses, they will be bailed out and the debts will be paid back by the American people. But if the regular Jos operates a business, goes into debt, and has to file bankruptcy, he won't be bailed out because the future of himself or his family isn't that important.   

First of all this is not entirely true, as you said government uses this statement to scare people and for the sake of escape solution if there is a question raised against their coal burning,etc...

Yes the Bitcoin mining requires high amount of electricity but its not that high comparing with the entire banking system, infrastructure, servers required for processing, so I hope in future the mining won't be affected and I expect the government to support mining farms to build ecosystem using renewable energy sources.

A scientific study by Nature magazine on the subject
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-18686-8

Governments can do it or try to do it if they want to but to succeed, they must provide solid reasons to ban Bitcoin mining.

Honestly, I don't believe they can provide solid reasons behind their decision. Their citizens are not stupid and in free world, people can have access to multiple resources, governmental and non-governmental so that they can not what governments want to shill is not true.

Bitcoin mining industry contributes to carbon emission so it has effects on Climate change. However, if governments say they must ban Bitcoin mining because of it, just to reduce impact on Climate change, that is not convincing. If they care about Climate change, they should ban other industries that emit more carbon and green house gas than Bitcoin mining.

The latest report from Bitcoin Mining Council does not support governments.

this kind of their Attack has always been happening without any further consequence on bitcoin network, bitcoin is environmentally friendly and they themselves know that, but the central authorities will always agitate on this bitcoin bitcoin isn't centralized under them (government) and they shouldn't expect any change from PoW to PoS while the only one they should expect is the advance use of renewable energy source for bitcoin mining which everything about mining bitcoin will go green.

 
No, bitcoin mining cannot be banned and i they succeded then it's a way forward to quickly implement the use of renewable energy source allover and abandon the energy source from government but i believe they wouldn't also wanted to do such because of the tax and other means they generate income from bitcoin mining.


bitcoin mining has gone beyond thier boarders of reach, miners now mine bitcoin right from the comfort of their homes and setup a rig under the improvised renewable source, converting environmental energy waste into use for bitcoin mining.


The earlier the government knows that this is to thier own detriments, that all the earnings from bitcoin mining would stop coming in for them and government role regarding energy utilization will be less effective with bitcoin mining.

The monitoring of electricity consumption is already a thing. That's one way how to catch owners of home-made marijuana plantations.

Attacking bitcoin due to the volatility has become boring. Throwing dirt at something for being dangerous (for its volatility for example) is not a credible threat when you consider how many people are gambling drinking alcohol, abusing drugs. No one listens to that don't trade Bitcoin, it's dangerous narrative.

But with climate change nonsense, you get to frighten your listeners with things like your children won't have a home on this planet if you don't do something quick. One of those pollutants is Bitcoin. Hopefully it won't work.

Greenpeace is lobbying the US government. One way or the other, they have a voice. Maybe no one takes them seriously but they are shouting. Bitcoincleanup.com is a great initiative but it remains to be seen if it or something similar can become a valid counter argument in institutions of power. 

You are forgetting about the implications of what such an industrial scale mining ban would have on the security of the blockchain. It's no longer the same secure network we have today and it becomes considerably easier to attack by adversaries.

No, the reason why it will not be banned entirely is because it has contributed to the growth of some of their users in the land, and they have seen what Bitcoin will do in their environment in future if they do everything to protect the miners . I guess, the government will do everything possible within their power not to allow such climate to happen to bitcoiners in the environment, because Bitcoin has helped many miners in the country to became successful in their business
Yes, since many people know that miners are making big money from their mining business in the country, The government can decide to increase their taxes in the country just to make it difficult for them to earn well or not to have good network to mine bitcoins in the land.

I can never be surprised at human stupidity in the sense that they blindly believe what the mainstream media serves them - and this whole agenda that the world will remain in the dark because someone is mining Bitcoin might make sense if there were no statistics and elementary mathematics. How powerful those behind such an agenda are is not in doubt at all, but all those who have an elementary education should distinguish lies from truth.

As for the EU and their plans to ban POW, just the other day in another thread I wrote that except for Germany, which supposedly has about 3% hash rate, all other countries have maybe even that much (or less), so if the EU wants to stand by China and some other democratic countries I have nothing against them showing their true colors.

What gave momentum to the anti-POW group was certainly the merge in which a popular altcoin successfully switched to POS, and some of them think that now is the right time to do the same with Bitcoin. I'm glad they don't know the difference between a centralized altcoin where all the moves are made by one person, and the Bitcoin community, which knows very well that leaving POW would mean the end of Bitcoin as we have it today.

The myth that POW threatens the climate has long been debunked, and people just need to be prepared to prove it to anyone who says otherwise.

I think that all this hype around the harm to the environment due to bitcoin mining is exaggerated and there are many other types of human activities in the world that cause more harm to the surrounding world. But for some reason, mining has recently been criticized from the standpoint of environmental friendliness.

Will mining be banned? Let's assume that it will be forbidden on an industrial scale, but who can forbid doing it at home in small quantities? Supervisory authorities will not be able to check or track this.

The difficulty of btc mining is only affected by the number of miners, isn't it? How will the problems of big mining companies affect btc mining ? It seems to me that these are their expenses, which will affect the profitability of their business, but this should not affect the mining itself. Let's say they stop mining due to low profitability (due to the ways voiced in OP's question), the hash rate will drop and this will become beneficial for small miners. Still, there will be those who want to. It will even be better for the bitcoin network due to better mining decentralization.

Why not? If we ever reach the scenario where bitcoin is being used by anything even approaching a large number of the global population, can governments afford not to mine? If a good chunk of international trade ends up being conducted using bitcoin, are governments going to be happy not having a stake in the security of the network (never mind not earning more bitcoin for themselves)? If a chunk of US trade is happening in bitcoin, and the CCP in China start mining bitcoin, then the US government will almost certainly set up their own mining operation in return, for example.

And that's of course assuming that people are mining with electricity from the grid, and not just hooking their miners up directly to their solar panels/wind turbines or other means of renewable generation.

Unlike China, Western democracies fortunately don't have the foundation for effectively executing such heavy handed legislation. Even if widescale monitoring of individual household's energy consumption becomes a thing in the near future (that is assuming both that smart meters become mandatory and available privacy-preserving techniques become outlawed), increased energy assumption alone would hardly warrant a... well, warrant.

Though it would be kinda funny for a police raid taking place at a suspected crypto-miner's home only for them to find out that they were merely running a cannabis farm.

Centralized governments mining BTC, surely that is not possible, governments can probably regulate, ban or try to influence BTC to move to centralized POS, but surely not mining BTC that they are adversaries to.
Not so loud by the way, and BTC being a network with no central authority, so it is not like there is any designed group that can seriously speak on its behalf, it is going to or has to be a community/collective stuff as is everything in the BTC network. E.g CSW lies didn't go unchallenged even though we don't have a central authority, he was called out for being a con man and a liar my numberous pro BTC users and Devs (both past and present), another example is Greenpeace's shitty 1 million dollar campaign against BTC, it is being challenged by one of our very own through bitcoincleanup.com, and i also know many other community member's are doing their own things to challenge that lie. So i am thinking it will be the same with this too, the community will still collectively challenge and prove that all of these are lies, and only a government that has no use of the truth won't see it.

Not only that, but without actually doing anything themselves. Reducing your own carbon footprint takes effort. You have to spend time sorting out your recycling, or composting your food waste, or walking more and driving less, or taking public transport and driving less, or changing your diet to eat less red meat, or god forbid going outside and exercising instead of watching TV. Much easier to just post online about how bitcoin is killing the planet while doing literally nothing to help.

Sure, but there has been much less in the way of media attacks about its volatility this time round it seems. Maybe I'm just coming across such trash less frequently, but it seems to me it's difficult for any government to call bitcoin too volatile when they are printing trillions of dollars worth of fiat and have inflation rates in double figures.

Europe already have plans to be sufficient in renewable energy and will also monitor how much energy a home is using. With such monitoring, yep they can see thru whos doing stuff like crypto mining. If they wanna ban crypto mining, they can really illegalized it.

Or they could also incentiviced or provide mining licenses. Or the goverment it self will be mining.

The volatility factor hasn't. Bitcoin remains a risky investment due to its volatility, but also because of all the interconnected threats that come with it. Self-custody is both a blessing and a death sentence depending on the person using the system. Phishing, hacking, malware, the irreversible nature of transactions. To us, it's a feature we have learned to cope with and use to our advantage. But to the enemy, it's reasons worth highlighting when they want to control, regulate, or ban & destroy. And if we go head-to-head, they are the ones with the bigger pull.   

But how loud are those voices in strength and numbers compared to those of the enemy? I don't think I am making a mistake calling them "the enemy" because that's what they are. How much influence do pro-bitcoin advocates have in US institutions of power, with the President, media, banking, business, etc. compared to the antagonists?   

The EU isn't that big of a mining hub as the US is, so a US ban would have muck more adverse consequences I think. The EU is just America's bitch. Pardon my French. When it comes to big global decision-making, they will ask Big Daddy how they feel about it.

It’s probably obvious by now why governments, authoritarians and big fish in finance scrutinise it, because it is coming for their ability to game the system, educating people about a lot of authoritarian-unfriendly subjects and would put them out of business in certain areas. On an individual level they have more power and wealth if they contain/ try to neuter Bitcoin than otherwise.

Simple conflict of interest that doesn’t exist for other industries, who can actually be milked and controlled by the same group of people. I think we would only see a change here when the incentives change, and people no longer accept being gamed by a broken financial system.

What’s more interesting is that regular people with zero actual knowledge about Bitcoin participate in this scrutinisation, which goes against their own interest. Probably because it’s so easy to scrutinise, when it gets falsely depicted as climate destroying by trusted authorities, used for crimes and speculations and there’s a general push in mainstream culture to scrutinise anything that questions the status quo. They value low-quality misinformation higher just because it’s coming from a place they trust, there’s no verification of anything. It’s easy and trendy to bash it, so people can depict themselves as wannabe critics and climate saviours without actually knowing anything they’re talking about.


It’s hard to give a general answer, we’ll probably see all four of these in different jurisdictions and changing over time. Mining will be fine.

Also (1) Bitcoin usage is still far from mainstream and (2) PoW is too abstract a concept.

Regarding (1) it's easier to blame something that only a fraction of the population is using rather than something the majority of people, like driving fossil fuel cars, eating meat, short distance air travel etc. All things that get plenty critized of course, but also all things that politicians rarely dare touch for fear of public backlash.

Regarding (2) a lot of people simply don't get PoW. It's easy to attack something that is not properly understood and thus perceived as useless.


That being said, I don't think there will be any meaningful legislative interference. Just how going after Bitcoin's PoW is symbolic rather than effective, any regulation "attacking" PoW is likely to be little more than posturing as well. And even if some governments would ban mining outright, the way China did, some other country will always take their place, assuming they'd even be able to effectively crack down on it to begin with.

Two reasons. First, they need some angle to attack bitcoin. It has been attacked for being worthless magic internet money, which has been proven to be false. It has been attacked as being a scam or a Ponzi, which has been proven to be false. It has been attacked as being too volatile, too risky, dying hundreds of times, all of which have been proven to be false. The latest attack is that it is killing the planet. This is also false, but it is the angle they are using for the time being until education wins out and they pick a new angle.

Secondly, they need a big bad boogieman to blame their failings on. Most western countries will massively miss their targets for cutting emissions over the next decade, because they have failed to invest in renewables, continue to invest in new oil and gas, and continue to allow private companies to pollute with abandon. Rather than turn around next election cycle and say "We failed because we accepted bribes from oil companies", much better if they can say "We would have succeeded if not for those pesky kids bitcoins!"

I am still hopeful that education will win out. It's not difficult to prove that bitcoin's energy consumption is completely insignificant. It's also starting to be recognized by various governments that bitcoin mining is uniquely placed to help facilitate a move to robust renewable network via what is known as demand response. See my posts here and here about this.

And even if we are stupid enough in the US to fall for this nonsense and ban mining outright, there is absolutely zero chance of a global ban. We already saw how quickly the hashrate recovered and starting hitting new ATHs again after the (ninth?) Chinese ban on bitcoin. And with bitcoin mining being one of the lead users of green and renewable electricity in the world, I'm not too concerned.

In a world increasingly worried about climate change and its effects on our planet, everything our leaders deem unwanted could be in trouble. We have heard numerous stories about how much energy Bitcoin uses. Those against Bitcoin often say that it requires more energy than whole countries.

But Bitcoin’s Proof-Of-Work consensus algorithm relies on that power to keep the blockchain safe. This will not be a discussion about PoW, its advantages, or disadvantages. It will also not be about how much renewable and clean energy is used in mining bitcoin already.

This is about why Bitcoin is scrutinized while other industries aren’t? For example, a report from 2019 shows that electronic devices on standby in the United States alone consume more electricity than the whole Bitcoin network would in over 3 years. Yet, nobody is talking about their impact on our environment.

If you want to read more about this, Bitcoin’s use of clean energy, PoW, and myths about Bitcoin’s energy consumption, check out Bitcoincleanup.com.  


Soon after US President Joseph Biden took office, he signed Executive Order 14067 - Ensuring Responsible Development of Digital Assets. This document mentions words like “environment,” “environmental impact,” “pollution,” “climate change,” “climate impact,” and similar terms dozens of times.

Both the EU and the US are discussing new crypto regulations. One of their agendas is, again, the crypto economy's impact on the environment. Let’s not talk about how the actual goal is to further restrict their citizens from using unregulated and decentralized assets they can’t control or adequately tax through their institutions and puppets in suits.

With all this in mind, what do you think will be the future of PoW and Bitcoin mining?

1.   Do you think it will be banned entirely after scaring people with climate change concerns?  
2.   Will they find ways to make it harder to mine Bitcoin? More regulation, bigger taxes, regular inspections, overly complicated paperwork, and heavy fines for not complying with CO2 emissions are some of the ways they could penalize entities involved with PoW mining.
3.   Do you think the world governments could incentivize those still mining with fossil fuels to transition to clean energy?
4.   Or will all this calm down one day, Bitcoin and its POW will be left alone, and world leaders will focus on other, more important things?

Please vote in the poll and share your thoughts and ideas below.