Topic: Environmental groups urge US government to take action on crypto miners - page 2. (Read 418 times)

Sure, go and focus on the easy ones, as usual. We've got people flying around and testing rocket fuels every day for hours on end, for fun and personal gain and no global benefit, burning far more than miners, who are actually providing a much-needed service.

Same old story every time, don't they all get tired of fighting the wrong enemies?

Bitcoin industry is not polluted at the level haters talk about it. It is not true if I say Bitcoin mining does not cause any issue for the environment but if we compare it with other industries, it is better.

So why do the worse industries try to attack a better one, namely Bitcoin?

• Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument.
• Endthefud (Energy)

I don't really know the content of the letter or the background of the initiators and their real intentions. I am a strong Bitcoin advocate, but nevertheless there are developments in the USA regarding miners (also in other parts of the world) that I absolutely do not support, such as the fact that the Hardin coal-fired power plant in Montana was supposed to be closed, but is now still being operated because of Bitcoin mining. This is an absolutely alarming development in terms of the environment. If that's part of the content of the letter, I don't think it's a bad thing.

I do not see this as a big problem at all, even if the leading states ban bitcoin mining. More than 19 million bitcoins out of 21 million have already been mined. Bitcoin may well do without the remaining two million. In addition, in our world there will always be nooks and crannies where bitcoin will be mined with any restrictions.
But in general, states can prohibit the mining of cryptocurrencies that use the PoW algorithm. They are not interested in a decentralized cryptocurrency. It's easier than radically restructuring their energy-intensive industries.

Michael Saylor has the right approach, we are talking about creating energy and not using energy that is the problem. Not like miners are picking coals to produce energy specifically or something.

Using energy is a right, you should be able to use it however you want and that is fine, the problem is that we are talking about something that is rare in this case, and if you do not end up understanding that you should not use fossil fuels or gas or coal or any other similar terrible to world energy sources, then the whole world will be better.

We will get there, specially with this Russian sanction deal it's getting faster, but we are not there yet, focus on them first.

And what about the banking system?

If they're sensitized about public benefit, they should begin a shut down campaign against the entire financial sector, which is by the way, one of the worst regarding this matter. Bitcoin uses energy for mining, while the banking system requires ATMs, credit/debit cards, transports, money issuance, skyscrapers for central and commercial banks, and these are off the top of my head.

Lol! It's hilarious! It seems only crypto mining companies produce pollution and no one else does that. The heavy industries generate way more pollution than all crypto mining put together. But I believe the environmentalists are going crazy because most of the mining operations are for personal benefits rather than public benefits. I believe that's the main pain point for them.

If some countries seek to ban mining operations, there will be other countries who will open up for migration. Crypto is a serious business now!

No no no, you don't get it. Oil companies, mining companies, the military industry complex, plastic manufacturers, companies responsible for deforestation and dumping pollution directly in to rivers - these are all fine, because they sponsor our politicians, fund their campaigns, take them out for nice dinners, and so on. Bitcoin doesn't do these things, and so it is obviously by far the worst polluter in the world and must be relentless targeted, despite being a completely irrelevant and negligible fraction of even one of the companies belonging to the previously mentioned categories.

You want to completely offset the entire carbon dioxide production of the global bitcoin network several times over? Stop leaving your TV and cable box on stand by. That's it. I'd like to see anyone say the same thing about Exxon or Aramco.

Once again, they are only taking action against pollution sources which are "easy" to stop but whose total contribution to global pollution is very negligible, while ignoring the really big pollution emitters which are much more difficult to solve: factories.

You can't hide from the fact that old-fashioned 20th century industrial factories are one of the leading causes of pollution, because they were built during a time when nobody cared about this problem.

I know it sounds harsh but new energy-efficient factories must be built in their place and the old ones decommissioned, even if it comes at a cost to the bottom lines of those businesses (but hey, they don't seem to have a problem with that, hurtig the bottom lines of mining firms as they're already doing).

I think that environmental organizations should do their research or review existing research (not biased sponsored shit, but legit things) before putting up proposals. What are the most impactful areas in terms of climate change? Which are the easiest to change potentially? Which can be reduced rather than fully abolished? Which can be restructured or abandoned for the sake of better options? It's best to tackle big industries and make policies that would affect many agents on the market, rather than crack down on particular things, such as crypto mining IMO. I hope that there will be enough counteraction in the US.

Ahh yes, another letter based on the "research" of Alex de Vries, the individual who is employed by large banks who are pushing for CBDCs and receives payments from these large banks to write bullshit articles disparaging bitcoin, based on erroneous data, false data, or sometimes no data at all and just pure conjecture on his part. His "research" would be laughed out of most academic circles - biased, misleading, and sometimes entirely fabricated - but there seems to be no end to the number of people who will just believe anything they read and then write to Congress about it. Vries is literally on the payroll of a bank who wants bitcoin to fail. Believing his nonsense is the same as believing all the "research" which showed that smoking isn't bad for you, funded and published by the Tobacco Industry.

Here are some links which explain why this is all complete bullshit:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/bitcoin-energy-per-transaction-metric-is-misleading
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/elon-musk-bitcoin-environment-wrong

Among the proposals, the group of eight organizations requested the Environmental Protection Agency subject PoW mining firms to “stringent reviews” around operating permits.

As the crypto space continues to grow with many investors in the United States, industry leaders and lawmakers have stepped up to address issues around financial risks as well as the potential impact on the environment from Bitcoin (BTC) mining. In April, a group of 23 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the EPA saying the “rapidly expanding cryptocurrency industry needs to be held accountable” and alleging “cryptocurrency mining is poisoning our communities.”

The Bitcoin Mining Council responded with its own letter written by MicroStrategy CEO Michael Saylor to EPA administrator Michael Regan on May 2, claiming that the group of lawmakers had mistaken several key issues. The industry leader placed the alleged misconception on “power generating facilities” causing pollution, not BTC mining itself.


The New York State government is currently considering a bill that could place a two-year ban on all new PoW mining facilities in the state using carbon-based fuel to power their operations. Both the Sierra Club and Seneca Lake Guardian have pushed back against mining firm Greenidge Generation Holdings’ operations at the state’s Seneca Lake.

(Source: Cointelegraph)