Topic: Regulations on proof of work might be coming (Read 1053 times)

Once a scammer always a scammer. He will always believe that he is telling the truth and himself and won't ever imagine that he is actually scamming people, that's the thing. If you asked him, and you gave him like a lie test or something and asked if he scammed people with BCH, he will say that he did not and the lie test will show that he is not lying.

Not because he wasn't scamming, but because even he himself believed it, and this is the same thing. When someone scams you and thinks they are not, that's even more dangerous than the person who scams you and aware of it, because the one who does will stop after a while and this one won't do that.

Here's one for the trolls, and don't wear your tin-foil hats. Can "The Economist magazine predict the future", https://www.nspirement.com/2021/11/03/the-economist-predict-the-future.html



What is Alice and the white rabbit looking into? Where is Ethereum running to, and in what direction is Bitcoin running towards? Ethereum is running into the hole, Bitcoin is running away from it.

Ethereum might have signed its death certificate when it made the switch to POS. It has DEVOLVED itself, and gave up its advantage.

BCash Scammer Roger Ver, the person who spreads the lies and misinforms the community that BCash is "the real Bitcoin" because "Peer to peer electronic cash" tweeted something,




Hahaha! What kind of scam does he have to con the community now? New tokens perhaps? We can't simply trust Roger Ver. There's always an agenda with him.

Yep , I think you are all stupid for supporting POW.
But I don't believe any of you PoW supporters are actually capable of thinking.  
Cults usually frown on their cult members actually thinking.

---

https://decrypt.co/109283/white-house-bitcoin-mining-greener-ban
Time is short.

Yeah and the same organisation protesting against bitcoin over the environmental concern despite looking at the facts that how much energy consumption is their in the other sectors but total waste of time.

Yeah he just wants to fill out his bags which he has done with doge and why isn't he tweeting about it taking to the moon? He has taken out his share and now he can do same with ETH also with the centralised shit staking big amounts and getting more control over the network.So yes he can do it now with the merge.

It gives exact response to those who believe these merge can make bitcoin loose it's decentralisation nature and it doesn't care about it at all.

It has changed nothing but given the privileged more control over the network and has shifted towards more centralised chain of authority that has more risk associated with its exploitation but they just want to consume less electricity at any cost even if change the whole concept of decentralisation.

The more facts people show you the more aggressive towards them you become, throwing insults and calling names. You "world savers" are getting desperate.
Keep dreaming about POW bans all around the world. Every time I see people talk about worldwide bans I ask them a single question. When did you see the world cooperate to stop something? I don't recall such event. In every conflicts there are those who are for and those who are against. Looking at your posts I can see that we won't get anywhere and have to agree to disagree. There's no changing your mind. You think we're all stupid for supporting POW and we think the same about you.

Geez , were you sleeping when they were handing out brains?

Wrap it, Sell it , and the person can buy whatever they want on coinbase or any other exchange.

As far as coinbase they are only at 15% of staking , does that get your panties in a bunch.
Was the pic from the earlier post , too small for you to read?

What really bugs you , is that PoW is getting banned soon, and bitcoin supporters don't have a clue what to do.

Cry fud and watch btc die, is what you will do.  


FYI:
In Proof of Waste mining, a mere 4 mining pool operators can 51% attack bitcoin daily for years,
can your miners point to another pool , sure only after the 51% attack occurred. (PoW miners are not bright so they might not even notice.)
The mining pool operators can then just setup new pools, with new names and 51% attack the dummy bitcoin network again.

In Ethereum Proof of Stake, anyone that attempts a 51% attack, coins are destroyed
read that again because PoW users are not bright  coins are destroyed.
This means however many millions were used to buy those coins, just got pissed in the wind.
Not only will there be no second attempts, the dummy that tried it is now broke.

Warp your centralized coin in to a centralized token owned and controlled by Coinbase? Sounds great!

Also, that is not the same thing is unstaking your Eth. You cannot unstake your Eth. You can only receive a wrapped centralized token from Coinbase in return.

This is fundamentally different from PoW where your hashrate can be pointed at any pool you like at any time, or mine solo, or turned off, etc. If a mining pool does something shady, the miners react and move their hashrate elsewhere. If an Ethereum staker does something shady, the users cannot do anything.

If you guys are going to talk about ethereum , do some research so you won't keep sprouting nonsense.
Anyone can sell their Their ETH2 on Coinbase , right now if they so choose.
Coinbase.com

You are aware it is literally impossible to unstake Eth at the moment? Once it is staked, it is staked for potentially a year or more until the Ethereum devs implement some future upgrade to allow people to actually unstake it or stake it with a different entity. If Coinbase decide to go rogue with their staked share, there is nothing the individual users can do about it. They can't unstake, they can't withdraw, they can't switch, anything. (Although I'm sure in such a scenario a small number of devs will publish some code to make sure things continue in the way they want them to, just like when ETH and ETC split. Decentralized, just as long as you do what you are told. Lol.)

On the other hand, bitcoin miners mining in a pool have absolutely nothing tying them to that pool, and can switch to a different pool at any time with a moment's notice. Imagine if ASICs were produced which could only mine on a single pool, could never be changed to a different pool, and couldn't even be switched off. This is the current situation with Eth PoS.

Wow, you really work at it, to be that stupid.
Funny , how you have to lie, really lame of you, I guess Ethereum evolution scares the hell out you.  

According to the below chart, their are over 10 eth2 staking entities, which is 6 better than Bitshit's Proof of Waste Mining Pools.



Now Cardano has implemented code and their pools number over 3000.
Which ethereum could add at anytime if they so choose, but since ethereum decentralization beats the hell out of bitshit,
they will be in no hurry. Proof of Stake can be upgraded to add feature, Bitshit Proof of Waste, well that will just be banned.

Now say something else stupid, pooya87.
Since that is all we can expect from you.

You should first learn the difference between a mining pool and a miner then make silly comments like this.
What's funny is that you have no problem with 1 exchange having the biggest stake in a PoS shitcoin and can control it and even change the protocol. It's not like it hasn't happened in the past either! We have actual examples.
You also don't have any problems with 1 entity having full control over the majority of the PoS shitcoins which they premined. Oh we have example of that too

It's also currently more possible under Ethereum's new system, only accounts that went through KYC will be allowed to stake. It definitely opened new attack vectors that can be used by centralized government entities, some of which will only be known by the users by surprise. A Black Swan.

Bitcoin should never change, especially not because there are mere trolls who are probably from the BCash SV community.

Funny , how you have no problem with 3 or 4 mining pool operators having total control over BTC for years now.

 

FYI:
Cardano PoS has a design that lowers staking % if the stake pool gets too high.
Which guarantees that centralization like what is in btc never happens in cardano.  

---

Do you have any links to anyone in that dept , that disagrees with elimination of PoW, I like to see it.

Saying PoS is less secure than PoW , does not make it so, that is pure conjecture or opinion not a guarantee.

PoS has been around since 2013, unlike PoW, it's design is continuing to evolve,
such as cardano that has code to prevent centralization, which btc does not have
and algorand that has transaction finality in only 4 seconds, and BTC does not have transaction finality in 4 years.

If you want to talk secure, transaction finality is the hands down standard, and that is not debatable no matter authority or spectator.
Knowing that a transaction can't be reversed ever is security, bitcoin does not have that with it's weak PoW design.
 
  

Just because an authority or at least a perceived authority has said one thing, doesn't actually make it true. The fact is, within that department you definitely would've had people disagreeing with that statement, and when you look at the bigger picture then you can see why Proof Of Stake isn't secure.

However, it all depends on what use case you're looking at, for some things proof of stake could potentially be secure, however for Bitcoin or for general cryptocurrencies you don't want to be using it, since it's less secure than Proof Of Work. That can't be argued, it's basically a fact at this point.

However, it might be deemed secure enough for some things, like I hinted too. Technically, that means it's secure for certain use cases, but in terms of Bitcoin. Absolutely not, you want to be using the most secure protocol available to you ideally, without major inconvenience that is.

when staked coin is hoarded by 3 top exchanges.. those exchanges are not just the mining pool.. but also the economic nodes of deciding what forks to follow for their trading market order books. and the vault holders of general users wealth

take bitcoin. if an exchange wanted to only service BCH instead of BTC. that has influence on users of what chain people should use to move value to convert to fiat.
but if the miners are supporting a different chain. then thats a separate feature of the network security of how easy it is to 51% attack or chain re-org. and also the cost of mining that influences the price..
and then normal users of consensus have to ask themselves what chain they want to use.. thus a 3rd aspect of decentralised security against a sudden change of blockchain rules/utility


but.. with PoS where the exchanges are
the market orderbook service influencers of value swap..
the price discovery
the miners whose cost brings a low store of value
the miners who decide on forks/utiltiy protection
and users life savings holder.

thats at risk if users oppose their vault owner(exchange) decisions

thats a central point of multiple hits for users that oppose an exchanges decision. yep if users oppose exchanges.. the users lose their own stake.. dont have access to exchanges to then trade,,  thus users automatically would just follow the whim of exchanges no matter what. thus no choice.. just a 1 central point meaning exchanges can do as they like and everyone follows

Funny, the US Office of Science and Technology list Proof of Stake as Secure.
Maybe they are smarter than you franky1, because weak was left out.

They also recommended PoW be eliminated. (1 executive order is all it takes.)

All those smart people, and they have a totally different viewpoint , imagine that.  

PoS is weak security.
it has a very low cost of security thus cheap to attack. its only saviour is that PoS coins were so lacking of utility no one cared to attack it.
however for major coins. people will attack it.
(watch this space for people trying attack Eth now)

those supporting PoS are the types that dont want to put work/effort into the security. they dont even care about longevity of a coin. they just want a zero work effort passive automated income.
they dont realise that ETH for instance dropped its store of value from$900 underlying support to under $40, and soon thats going to become under $4 support. thus all the market price becomes is 99.95% speculative with a low near zero value support

thus millions of people getting 0.0000x eth passively for no work. will soon realise that the small decimal is worth 99.95% less than it was this year

thus their dream of easy riches soon fade away where they then have another reason to cry and try to want to change ETH again to try to get rich quick for free

PoW is about work effort which gets rewarded. and the funding and competition actually helps make bitcoin more secure aswell as funds power plant companies excess which gives them more income to then invest in upgrading more power plants sooner.

PoS does none of that. its about pretending poor lazy people can passive income for free to get into riches.. which never works out and leaves the network vulnerable to attack

Trolls who are making their debate for POS, especially if using Ethereum as the narrative, have no understanding or doesn't try to have an understanding of what Ethereum actually lost, and its importance. There's currently more/increased probability that Ethereum will devolve and accept "the trade-off" to be compliant, which should be UNACCEPTABLE for a base layer.

Last time , I checked rolling blackouts are happening across the world due to energy shortages .
Whether lack of investment or some global conspiracy, abundant energy is not available,
so you have to live in the real world not your imagination.

Feel free to create a dyson sphere and solve the world energy problems.
Until then the world has an energy shortage.

Texas generates less than 1% of the world's total energy.
The World's power grid are not all interconnected.
The reason other industries are not an issue, is they spread out across the grids,
where as btc mining parasite like to collect in 1 area, because of greed.
That is what threatens any power grid that the PoW parasites decide to congregate on.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-26/texas-crypto-rush-may-need-as-much-power-as-entire-state-of-n-y?leadSource=uverify%20wall

When , not if, but when the BTC miners collapse the Texas power grid by 2024, millions of people lives will be at risk,
power failure from a collapsed grid takes 2 to 5 years to repair,
in a full scale grid down scenario , 90% of the populace would be dead in the 1st year.
In state only scenario, where surrounding states still have access to power, you could lose 25% of the population in 2 years,
which in Texas case would be ~7 million people,
not to mention the almost total destruction of Texas economy , along with severe damage to the US economy.
In my opinion, some nutcase hoping a dead end PoW BTC makes him rich, is not worth the lives of 7 million people.
And the Government Officials will agree, or be voted out.
Which is why PoW mining will be permaban in 2024, people lives are worth more than a bullshit coin name bitcoin.

FYI:
PoS verses PoW is over, Proof of Stake Won
Considering in the top 20 coins on CMK, only BTC is stupid enough to stick with PoW

The Final battle is
The People Verses Bitcoin (PoW)
The People are going to win and Proof of Waste is going to die.

The world has abundant energy. Covering just 1% of the area of just the Sahara desert with solar panels which we can manufacture today would generate enough energy to meet the needs of the entire world. Note that is energy, not just electricity. Enough energy to completely replace coal, oil, natural gas, etc. It could be done with a one off cost of around $5 trillion. That's less than the increase in the Fed's balance sheet over the last 3 years. That's less than what has been spent on bailing out banks around the world over the last decade.

There is no lack of energy resources. There is a lack of a will to spend money harnessing it, because our politicians are bought out by oil companies, banks, military industrial complex, and others, who are busy funneling the money in to their own pockets instead.

This is an absolutely moronic statement. If all PoW mining stopped today, global electricity usage would drop by a fraction of one percent. By next month, that saved fraction would already have been used up and more by the general growth and expansion of global electricity usage from other sectors which is continually happening. Banning PoW is completely inconsequential to global electricity use.

True but they never needed an excuse to create and spread FUD about bitcoin in the past 13 years. If anything the Ethereum's eventual demise would help put an end to some of the FUD they've been spreading. This shitcoin has already gotten dumped nearly 30% over the past 10 days.
What I'm mostly curious to see is the next roll back or coin freeze we see in this centralized platform.

Bitcoin community refusal to evolve btc to become energy efficient, is the problem.
Bitcoin community IGNORING the FACTs:
this world's is lacking in energy resources.
the increase in rolling blackouts
the price increases for anyone unlucky enough to be on the same grid as btc miners.

Bitcoin miners shoving 2 or 3 extra countries energy resource drain onto a single country or State's power grid is not even a pretense at sustainable.

PoW will be banned , because there is no choice, PoW gets the energy or the People get the energy.
It is either People get to live or PoW gets to live, which is why PoW is going to die.

BTC community could be brainstorming ways to regulate lower power consumption for PoW,
or since btc cultists don't like PoS, come up with another algo, that you do like that solves the energy issue.

But instead you waste BTC remaining time worrying about ethereum whom is in no danger from a PoW ban.

BTC community might want to start worrying about BTC PoW, because your house is on fire and your time is short.
The US President could end PoW mining in the US, at the earliest in late November , and what will btc community do ,
whine about how ethereum is unaffected.  

isnt it funny how a guy known to not care about bitcoin and has no clue how PoW could be regulated wants to make people look at... the deisel spend of DoD tanks

silly people that want us to discuss vegan protestors, DOD tank operators .. have not spent a single day to even research
SEC, CFTC, EPA OR FERC..actual risks
not caring to see what their remits are, their powers or their jurisdictional coverage

and just wanting to look at social drama instead.. oh them silly people, when will they learn to do proper research

Agreed and I have a similar attitude on this. It is a comedy show. However, the argument is Ethereum's transfer to proof of stake might be used as an attack against Bitcoin to create fud and pressure the government to create very strict regulations on mining which can also be used to attack any proof of work coin.

I believe SEC or FED or any government organization in the world could try to stop or ban anything in crypto as they want but they need to realize that it's decentralized and even if you want to ban it in one nation, it will continue from another nation.

You may think that if USA bans it, it would hurt the price a lot but China did it long time ago and we are fine, and China isn't a small nation neither, they had so many investors with so much money, at least as much as USA has, and we are still fine. So, ETH not being liked by governments is not a big deal for us, the reality is that we shouldn't really be worried about such a thing at all, it's fine, they can try to dislike it as much as they want.

Judging by the way the Greenpeace campaign is gaining ground, this could result in a noticeable impact if they continue to press on it. Being that btc is not very favorable to the government, it won't be hard for them to start looking at different ways to enforce regulations and mostly support the Greenpeace agenda.
The way things are right now and with the recent eth merge (no thanks to them), the pressure will be on btc. eventually, it may happen.  

Yeah, that's when it becomes difficult to quantify, hence my statement of "depending on which source you read". I've previously spoken about some studies which simply multiply the electricity usage of bitcoin by the average carbon dioxide production per unit of electricity to reach their value of how much CO₂ bitcoin is responsible for. But from other reports we know that this is inaccurate, as bitcoin uses far more renewable energy than average, and so its carbon dioxide production per unit of electricity will be far lower.

Reports can twist things, and choose which metrics to report or how they arrive at those metrics to fit their narrative. But even the most biased reports giving the worst possible outlook for bitcoin's energy usage still show that it is utterly inconsequential on a global scale, and doing almost anything else, from eating one less serving of beef a month to swapping your light bulbs for energy efficient ones, will more than offset your personal usage of bitcoin.

My bad. Yes, seemed like something's wrong. I'm searching for an article that describes in detail the percentage of U.S. DoD spending and environmental footprint, but I don't find much stuff. Probably because I don't know how to properly read articles like: https://theconversation.com/us-military-is-a-bigger-polluter-than-as-many-as-140-countries-shrinking-this-war-machine-is-a-must-119269. I'm not specialized nor do I study the energy sector at all.

With half of the hash rate being generated from renewables?

Well yes, but the military industrial complex bribes our politicians. Bitcoin doesn't. So they get a free pass despite being the single largest consumer of oil in the world. Perhaps rather than regulating proof of work we should regulate illegal wars?

The article says that of the energy they consume, 70% is used for movement. Not that they use 70% of all the world's energy. Even for our grossly overinflated and unnecessary military, that would be a bit much.

You have confused your units in your post. A megaton is a million tons. The article says the US military generates 60 megatons of CO₂, or 60 million tons, but not 60 million megatons. Depending on which source you read, bitcoin mining generates around 20 megatons.

Isn't it funny that the same people who're about to regulate Proof-of-Work (whatever the hell that means) do ignore the carbon emission from national defense? From an old article, the U.S military emits more CO2 than any other activity. They're consuming about 70% of the world's energy, just for moving and utilizing their equipment. About 60 million megatons of CO2.

How many does bitcoin mining do? Less than 100,000 megatons? And it's a self-incentive to renewable sources? Yeah. Who's gonna think of the environment, right?

Don't forget that ETC's hashrate has gone up by 300% since the merge, other altcoins have seen even larger increases in hashrate, ETHPoW has been forked and continues to use some hashrate, and so on. The merge has achieved nothing in terms of electricity consumption, it just lets Ethereum play even more in to the hands of centralized regulators. I suppose that goes well with their new centralized PoS protocol.

It's almost as if bitcoin wasn't created to submit itself to the will of governments. China have banned bitcoin what, 9 times? And yet still have ~20% of the global hashrate? Bitcoin will survive this regulation, as it will survive all regulation. And at some point in the future when bitcoin mining is essentially 100% renewable, then regulations such as this won't matter.

Funny,  
Topic is Regulations on proof of work might be coming

Instead of brainstorming on how BTC PoW could survive the coming Worldwide PoW ban ,(It won't survive by the way.)

all that anyone is talking about is Ethereum a Proof of Stake coin that could care less about regulations on PoW.

While all the btc supporters are worried about ethereum price,

BTC just fell to ~$18K, with no real bottom since VC money is drying up faster than Lake Mead.

 

FYI:
BTC Price Dec 2022 =>~$14K
BTC Price Dec 2023=>~$8K
BTC Price Dec 2024=>~$0 ,
*because Proof of Waste nonsense was banned worldwide after the Texas Power grid Collapse in 2024.
A Massive Power Grid Collapse in Texas during extreme weather could kill ~7 million people.
Replacement of the transformers from a grid collapse would take 2 to 5 years.

I believe Ethereum might have also made the situation worse for itself. Because if Ethereum's supporters theorizes that institutional investors will choose Ethereum over Bitcoin because "climate change concerns", they might not be reading into what the government could do.





There's a probability that Ethereum core developers shot themselves, after throwing the most basic advantage they had over their competitors.

for bitcoiners. wondering or worried that eth will out pace bitcoin.. dont worry
dont worry about eth market cap or eth price pumping in comparison to btc
eth production cost is 100%+ less if all validators CPU signed blocks
knowing its custodian pooled stake its 10,000x cheaper to create new eth.
the price of eth is going to go down.. by alot. this slow eth price drop is just the start of the new correction to the new low eth price stable level

thus the market cap of eth is going down.
and the future pumps of eth will be based on a new low by 2023-2024 where any pumps will have its monthly highs that are lower then todays low
2022 2023 2024
_/\__                 $1.5k
        \                $800
         \____/\     $100

if bitcoin was to change to a PoS the underlying value (minimum mining cost) also drops meaning the price would go down.

You mean the organization that was paid $5 million by Ripple to spread FUD about bitcoin.

It depends on whether in the weeks during 2023 or 2024 that ETH is pumping or has any pumping potential or not. Otherwise Elon doesn't give a shit.

The shitcoin with biggest market cap was using 99.97% less energy before ETH was created and replaced it as the biggest centralized shitcoin with highest fake market cap

LOL

It makes sense for rich and wealthy people who have some sort of power to hate bitcoin because it gives freedom to normal people like you and me, which means that they will do their best to get that freedom out the door as soon as they can.

Doesn't mean that they would be capable of doing that, just because ETH moved to proof of stake doesn't mean that bitcoin will do that too, as long as we stand on our ground, even with regulations we are going to make it work and that means maybe it's not going to be so simple but it will certainly be something we could keep going without a hitch just because they wanted it. Unity is the only thing we need, and as long as we are united, there isn't any government that can stop us.

LAUGHABLE!

Ethereum has actually DEVOLVED into something lower, like the other cheap blockchains competing against it for the same use cases. What Ethereum had that its competitors couldn't have is a self boot-strapped, mature, Proof of Work consensus layer. It's NOT EASY to reach that level. It was an advantage in the most basic level, but the Ethereum developers threw that away.

It also appears that there are some organizations similar to Green Peace that are also beginning to use Ethereum's transfer to proof of stake as an attack on bitcoin. There might be powerful people who hate bitcoin and they will do everything to attack it. This might discourage institutional investors and certainly what would their next choice of coin be if they want to invest in the cryptospace?

Elon Musk will buy Ethereum on 2023 or 2024.



The long-awaited #EthereumMerge is here: the world’s 2nd largest cryptocurrency now uses 99.95% less energy, dramatically cutting its climate pollution!

Now it’s time for @Bitcoin to change.

Source https://twitter.com/greenpeaceusa/status/1570408606180450311

this is not meant as FUD or to scare, but its deeper thinking about the plays which governments can do..

firstly bitcoin as an asset currency, is protected by property law..  whereby there are limitations on regulators telling businesses and users what they can do with their/our property.. because yes businesses and users can sue government if regulations cause adverse business/personal loss..

however if there is a switch to where bitcoin is regulated as a "commodity" under the premiss that bitcoin is a raw material used to make other products (tokenisation of sidechain units of measure)

then regulators can push further, limiting how much produce can be made by 'farms'. how much energy and materials farm can use. and a heck of alot of other things
(agriculture is very much under the thumb of commodity quota's, regulations and environmental limits)

however current drafts are not suggesting to go to extremes right now..
governments are not requesting a PoS change direct/now/soon. they are going to do a few things first and if each fails then go extreme

first ask asic miners to shift their power supplier/bill provider to one that are more 'green'

next request the larger asic farms to move to regions that are green and accepting of new large usage demand

next restrict businesses that use excessive energy to only have a quota amount of electric to contract to limiting over-use,

and if not, .. if all those have not helped ease the minds of government..
if bitcoin was to use more then a fair share of green and/or doesnt stop facilitating the continuation of fossil usage..
.. then possibly they will do PoS push
using tactics already done in crypto..
EG a (NY agreement+UAHF(yes H not S occured) ploy) using regulations with the bitcoin businesses. to mandate a new upgrade which exchanges, merchants and corporate development teams have to push and accept a PoS fork as BTC and the pow native version as an altcoin

where the upgrade would follow the ethereum tactic
..
lets discuss that last extreme.. of a POS push scenario
again this is not meant as FUD or scare tactics. its about risk awareness of extreme possibilities. and yes it is a small. but real possibility. to be aware of to then think of ways to mitigate and limits its ability to occur

and yes regulators can push all the businesses of crypto to comply.
- regulators can push employees of:
    brink, chaincode labs, blockstream, github to comply or have penalties
    (a dev push to mandate code change can be pushed)
    (as did DCG(blockstream) in 2017)

- regulators can push MSB's:
    exchanges, merchants, custodial wallets to comply or have penalties
    (to only service/fullnode/archive  certain network)
    (as US regulators did to exchanges not service monero, liquid, LN)
    (much like DCG(NY agreement) pushed in 2017)

to implement the code.. well thats like what ETH did
they first need to mandate 2 upgrades

an upgrade that simply sets a future date when PoW difficulty formulae changes to just exponentially get harder no matter the speed of block solves.. . where it makes PoW unsustainable to maintain after programmed trigger date

then during that delay period. mandate another upgrade to fork to PoS on said trigger date. where merchants/exchanges, and corporate dev teams only accept, view and maintain the PoS chains protocol and call the PoS protocol btc

obviously users will just follow suite. after all no point holding onto a blockchain that does not solve blocks fast and is not seen by exchanges/merchants. meaning people cant make transactions or spend value on said forgotten chain

so though the chances of such a thing happening may be minimal. if politicians see positive "greening" of crypto. we still need to be risk aware
due to the actual central points of failure that can be used against us. these being:

35% of mining in america
reliance on licenced and regulated exchanges
most prominent exchanges are american licenced/regulated
everyone follows one reference client sourced from one service(github) and maintained by mostly employees of 3 corporations who are child companies of a DCG portfolio

we really need to start thinking about mitigating these central points of failure to not make it that easy to cause regulators to push to extremes(if they should choose to)

I'd say almost definitely, which would be a shame when you compare it to the other industries which are plainly being ignored. I don't know how wide scaled this ban would be, but I can see it happening in certain countries. The thing is we've entered an era where energy is on the tip of everyone's tongue, and how that might influence the environment is something that's almost become a marketing scheme. Basically, the more green friendly you're the more business you get.

There was a meme the other day, which I believe was actually true; a supermarket a well known one in the UK, decided to put Vegan friendly on some vegetables. Plus, fast food places are now doing plant based burgers. It's the future, it's exactly how you sell more, and look good in your customers eyes. That you care about the environment, and therefore care about them.

It's not any different with Bitcoin. Bitcoin doesn't look good for those that haven't adopted it, which is the majority of the population of the world, and therefore if the governments were to ban it for the energy concerns, despite how inaccurate they might be, they've achieve mass support.

While Bitcoin PoW continues to be an insanely stupid waste of energy resources.

Ethereum has evolved leaving behind the dead-end technology know as Proof of work/Waste.

https://decrypt.co/109848/ethereum-energy-carbon-footprint-down-99-percent-merge


When Btc is banned for refusing to evolve, BTC PoW supporters have no one to blame but themselves.
https://flipboard.com/topic/pollution/limit-or-eliminate-biden-executive-order-triggers-shock-u-s-bitcoin-ban-propos/a-lp2GunLlQ8i1iscosrxElQ%3Aa%3A23460606-dd306aba00%2Fforbes.com

BTC Ban incoming , by US lawmakers or even sooner by executive order.
Time is almost up for the delusional that can't perceive the reality that BTC Pow is a dumpster fire.

 


FYI:
Even Texas Officials are starting to understand how deadly the BTC PoW waste is becoming.
https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/08/29/the-end-of-the-texas-bitcoin-mining-gold-rush/

https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/22/07/23/044233/are-bitcoin-mining-plants-helping-or-hurting-texas-power-grid

One thing that is often ignored is that more than half of the population is stupid, dependent on a shit job or wage and lacks critical thinking. The strategy of blaming things on something always works pretty well for the government because the average person believes what they say.

Also, if the strategy of blaming on others fails for the government, then they always show their Trump Card that always wins the game and guess what's that called? Direct one’s attention. They'll direct your attention on subjects like Covid or the new pandemic explosion, black lives matter, bitcoin, guns, drugs, etc.

We live in a world where slavery is called freedom. People in governments are legal criminals Far more dangerous criminals than others but they remain legal cause they decided to be so.

asic resistance does not lower electric usage. it just lowers hashrate/difficulty

those on asic resistant algo's just end up setting up GPU farms
which have high electric usage for low hashrate output (inefficiency)

EG 1x s19 asic = 3.25kwh for 110,000Ghash
16x GPU rack = 3.25kwh for 1Ghash

---

miners have to follow the rules core developers set out.(singular reference client point of failure weakness of bitcoin*)
users follow the rules BUT if the rules changed overnight(mandated/contentious fork). they follow the network that is most accepted by majority of exchanges/merchants/services(so that people can spend coins with known services)

---

something to not be afraid of this second but be aware of(for research/learning and matter of fact knowledge of risk) a possibility.

another "mandatory upgrade" could occur (blockstream +NYA tactics) but next time via regulatory push, involving mandated activation code that signals a changeover to a non-PoW mining algo

whereby (scenario to be aware of)
all the main licenced/regulated exchanges/services/merchants have to regulatory comply to agree to only accept non PoW coins, (call that the NY agreement comparable)
where they also push the core devs to code it(call it the Blockstream push comparable*)

take a few moments to think of the ramifications of the 2017 tactics used to mandate a feature upgrade, being used again, but this time by regulators pushing devs and exchanges to collude and push for another upgrade.
just so that you can be aware of possibilities
if a financial portfolio group DCG managed to pull it off in 2017. regulators can too

---

*dont turn this into a social drama debate about insults, taking sides, defending brands or pointing finger or trying to rewrite history depending on loyalty camps.
just use the hard data,code, facts of history of the event that occurred. to think about how it can be used again in the future against bitcoiners.

for people to watch out and prevent the risks, people need to be aware of the risks. dont shy away from being risk aware.

I speculate that because of the high cost of energy and the concerns caused by ESG, proof of work mining might be more than regulated. It might be banned in some jurisdictions. We might also begin to witness a more serious argument battle between proof of work vs. proof of stake within the cryptospace. I also predict that Elon Musk and Tesla will buy Ethereum for Tesla's balance sheet.

Sometimes I get confused about what the government is afraid of Bitcoin. The government sees Bitcoin as a terrorist who can threaten its power. They continue to develop negative issues towards crypto especially Bitcoin. The most frequent reasons they give are about the use of electricity, noise, and negative economic impacts. Actually all these reasons are refuted by what Bitcoin users do. Most mining projects no longer use government-owned electricity, but use solar power. Then about noise, could the sound of mining equipment make an area uncomfortable? If so, why doesn't the government apply the rules for using mining equipment to be at a distance from residential areas. Furthermore, regarding the negative economic impact argument, Bitcoin has actually improved the community's economy, and it can help the government burden.
There is indeed something bad about crypto, we can't deny in this, but don't generalize it, let alone mention Bitcoin. One of the bad things is the existence of problematic projects that can harm investors. But that's crypto, not Bitcoin. Crypto is general, while Bitcoin is absolute, special, single.
But I believe any steps to deny Bitcoin can't work normally. It's talking about power and capitalism. Even though we are not between the two, we can enjoy the coffers of the existence of Bitcoin.

Everything is hypocrisy, everything is a lie, and everything is politics. You can get away with everything if you control the right industries. Look how much hate there is right now towards everything Russian. Russian sports, Russian academia, music, companies, organizations, innocent citizens who haven't done everything wrong. Why? Because we are being fed to hate them by those not better than them. I have a friend of a friend who grows his own fruits and vegetables and exports a lot of it to Russia. He doesn't want to trade with them anymore despite Russian importers being solely responsible for his wealth and well-being with a long history of business dealings. I am waiting on when there will be a total ban on everything US because of their democratic efforts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. How about lying to the world that there are nuclear weapons to wage a war? Anyone? Any ETA? Only then should we consider a total ban of everything Russian. What a puppet show.

Kosovo: An independent state, maybe, please?
Everyone: Of course, we are behind you 100%. We welcome you to the club. Long live Kosovo.

Catalunya: An independent state, maybe, please?
Everyone: Are you out of your damn mind? What's wrong with you? There will be no restructuring of state borders whatsoever. How dare you propose something like that? You should be ashamed of yourself. Arrest that man!

Rant over.

Maybe they already know that renewable energy can't last long in mining equipment with drains. if they do something like this, maybe their country will be affected by other countries and will continue to mine using fossil fuels. But I wouldn't be surprised by the rule of law this will cause conflict again to countries where miners are free to mine BTC.

I am aware of this. This is why I was saying to try to maintain Asic resistance or develop methods to maintain it longer. I reckon the best example of a cryptocoin that has been trying to maintain Asic resistance is Monero. However, their hard fork to the RandomX mining algorithm might be the last try. If it will not successful, they will change the mining algorithm again to Sha 3 where it will be easier for hardware developers to create Asic.

It's not wasting energy. Energy is being bought on a free market. A power company puts a price tag on it and is also allowed to put a limit on your connection. Moreover, you are required to state the amount you'll need before they agree to connect you to the grid.

This means that if I build a house and request a 50 kW connection, it can be approved or denied. If they approve, this means they can spare this much for my house. A typical home needs 15 kW, so if I get 50, it means I can use the rest to mine, or heat my pool, or light my personal tennis court. They don't care what I'll do with it, the same way a grocery store owner doesn't care if you eat the food you buy, feed it to your dog, or throw it away.  

Government putting additional restrictions is once again trying to interfere with a free market, putting itself between the seller and the buyer.

the government will not calculate how much energy banks use, or some other agencies and companies that pay taxes to the government. Mining
Bitcoin is discriminated against because it appears to use too much energy, when it is only a percentage of the energy used by other sectors.
Excessive and frequent use of building air conditioners also contributes to global warming because AC produces freon which will be released into the atmosphere of the earth and cause a hole in the ozone layer because it contains CFC gas.
The government only makes crypto miners or bitcoin miners as scapegoats.

Ok, it will only be fair towards Bitcoin.. if they "regulate" the Banking sector too.. right? I mean... how much energy are used to run the Banking system? How much pollution is generated from their activities....

1. CCTV cameras + DVR's + Routers for security at all their buildings
2. Armored cars exhaust fumes from those large Diesel engines to transport the cash.
3. All those air-conditioning units in their building to make them nice and cosy.
4. Computers + Printers + Servers + switches + ATM's + card readers that are used.

So, how much regulations are forced onto the Banking sector to reduce their environmental impact on our world? 

I do agree that a lot of the stuff the media and governments print out about energy usage on POW is quite ridiculous but I can definitely agree that if something seems like it's wasting a lot of energy for a lot of nothing, it should raise concerns.

That said, we have to stop asking why anyone would ban POW but ask why people don't understand the benefits it brings.

It is like idiotic to start banning what people use power for, but we need to start understanding more, and in some countries why it became a problem.

Only if ASIC resistance wasn't a fake concept and could actually be implemented. So far what we have seen has been ASIC postponement since they create a different algorithm that the existing ASICs are not meant to solve so it buys them time until the day there is enough incentive for them to build a new ASIC that solves that particular algorithm. Like LTC history with scrypt which was introduced as ASIC resistance until the day they created LTC-ASICs.

There might be good arguments on the regulation of bitcoin mining and the regulation of energy usage of proof of work mining in America, however, similar to what the regulators have always done before, they use the laws and the rules created into a weapon to use against the ones who are regulated.

I reckon this only gives an argument for those cryptocoins that are trying to maintain Asic resistance to develop methods to maintain it longer.

That's true but the problem is that any government that faces energy crisis will always do the easiest thing which is to find something to blame all their incompetence on and redirect the public opinion there. The best option seems to be bitcoin these days. Funny thing is if they go as far as banning bitcoin, they'll have nothing left to blame while the "crisis" rages on. More countries are facing same crisis these days.
For example when China banned bitcoin mining, their total electricity consumption didn't come down even a little. But they stopped having something to blame it on.

The governments can find a thousand excuses to continue oppressing the Bitcoin mining industry. This will continue forever.
I'm sure that the Bitcoin miners in the US will try as much as they can to abide by all the ridiculous rules and regulations, that put discriminate them in comparison to other industries, that are way more damaging to the environment and are wasting way more energy.
Even if the BTC miners lose the battle in the USA, they will move overseas and find a better place.
My hope is that solar panels and wind turbines will become cheap enough so that there won't be a problem for the miners to build their facilities in any country in the world. The problem is cooling down the mining hardware, which limits the amount of locations, where the miners can build a facility.

Not exclusively, not by a long shot. It certainly can use power which would otherwise be wasted, and its ability to quickly ramp up and down to utilize this excess power is vital for a working renewable grid, but it is nowhere near running on 100% wasted power.

New renewable energy is not only already cheaper than new fossil fuel plants (and has been for some years), but it is also starting to become cheaper to build new renewables from scratch than it is to even simply continue to operate currently existing fossil fuel plants.

enforcing the banning law will be difficult for the authorities however. we could see china had done it in 2021 but there are still miners on the ground in China mining BTC as measured by hash rate. Bitcoin is the rebel they couldn't take control but this is understandable as government doesn't want any currency competing the USD. they may be successful in the first few months in enforcing but eventually the miners will be back.

I believe that policies that are aiming to lower environmental impact should be pursued because climate change will have devastating effects and mostly on communities that aren't at all to be blamed for it. The US is the largest consumer of beef in the world, and beef is heavily responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. It's also well-known that consumption of too much red meat carries serious health risks. So here you go, there's a thing where they could cut down the industry, reducing the environmental impact and health risks. The US is also extremely high in the number of cars per capita in the world (#2 if we exclude very small countries). Cars not only are bad for the environment but also take up a lot of space as well as force people to sit for an even longer time with little movement, which is also unhealthy. So here's another area where making regulations would be a good way to contribute to solving several issues. But no, they're [potentially] going after mining, which isn't even all bad for the environment because it depends on the energy sources and which doesn't have strong other adverse effects, not to mention it being a tiny part of things contributing to climate change.

The problem is temporary. Unless mining becomes a greener thing, it will be stomped on by regulators, however unsuccessfully. But making mining greener will make it more expensive. Which may raise the Bitcoin price so that might be a good thing. And for the planet as well.

But the overall problem is not the energy needed for mining but rather how that energy is created. Until the government decides to throw away all the dirty energy production methods and go for the more expensive (for now) green energies, this problem will persist. Just progressing more slowly. So the long term solution they should be looking for is clean energy production.

The FUD might make people who think this might have a negative impact on the price of Bitcoin panic sell for a short while though.

Why would anyone ban POW mining? It's completely harmless and uses power that would otherwise be wasted.
Most countries produce more power than they need, there's enough for everybody.

It should be up to the power company if it wants to sell to miners or not. Governments should not interfere in normal business. People have the right to make an offer and negotiate the contract. If a power company decides they're using too much they can increase the price above a certain limit of consumption. The governments shouldn't tell them what to do.

What's next? Are they going to raid homes to see what people are using their power for. If you have a plasma TV in each room - fine. A gaming PC? -fine. Electric central heating? -fine. A bitcoin miner? You go to jail you criminal!

bitcoin mining is not a yo-yo thing, where they will happily just switch off half the day or certain days of the week.

you will simply see asic farms just not set up in regions of solar/wind

they will instead set up in regions of hydro/nuclear that are more stable.
asic farms already do buy electric not by the day. but instead by the GW per quarter/year
where by you will simply see that governments will limit power companies to impliment a limit for certain industries whereby for instance each asic farm location has a max XGW per quarter quota upper limit (if governments wanted to go to those extremes)

..the electricity grid doesnt just do pay as you go responding by the minute to cater to demand telling industry to shut down via a phone call/email
they actually know their top capacity and know how much they can lock off as 24/7 utility of stable rate use. and sell off portions of that as a quarterly/yearly contract to have guaranteed income of stable use they can plan for(baseload contracts/PPA's)


                  night day night
                              
                 |      /\__/\_                 |      /\__/\_      |
residential  |/\_/ _____ \/\_           |/\_/           \/\_|
                 |___/         \___           |                       |
office/retail|_____________     not |   everything     |
industry     |_____________          |_____________|

they can plan for things like office/retail which usually operate in blocks of 12 hour stable use and then 12 hour low use
and then negotiate the pay as you go(residential) variable which peaks and dips hourly with other power stations that buy and sell surplus energy to share out different regions peaks and dips.
where by the stable 24/7 industry has been pre paid, pre organised, pre allocated amount months/year earlier

they actually prefer industries that have stable constant 24/7 use that will pay up in allotments of yearly contracts for XGW

its the random power of residential which national grids dont like as they have to ramp up and power down some plants which if not timed well causes brown outs

i do not think they will be phoning/emailing asic farms to switch off. at certain hours..(stupid idea of conspiracy to think they would call farms to shut down  certain times of the day)
instead they will just not offer yearly contracts if the previous years demand was close to capacity.
where as other regions with alot of excess capacity wil sell yearly electric contracts

as for residential..
well they will limit households to X kwh per day at low rate. and then X KWH at higher rate.

If they are using the grid then they have no special access to such data, but equally are no more responsible for the environmental effects than anyone else is, and any legislation should be targeted at all electricity users, and not singling out a specific electricity user which uses less than 1% of electricity. If they have their own solar or other renewable source in addition to using the grid, then sure they can provide such data, but then they are already better than the majority of other users so there is still no point targeting miners specifically.

Why haven't we banned dryers yet? They achieve literally nothing which can't be achieved by just hanging up your laundry, and use far more electricity than bitcoin does. Ban dryers!

Whenever I hear regulation of anything concerning bitcoin, ranging from regulating bitcoin it's to now regulating the PoW, I don't have serious panic. To regulate is different from to ban or to take over. Regulations could be setting up the modalities to ensure that all miners go green or set up regulations that will encourage replishment of depleted energies. So, Let's not be negative minded when we hear regulations. I know some states in the US who would be affected and would revolte if the game is seriously going against PoW and bitcoin.
Sometime ago China put a ban on bitcoin, according to the hype we all thought bitcoin will die, yet btc is still strong.

If they were worried about the environment and trees they would start by countries that are currently cutting down trees to make firewood for the winter to be burnt in millions of houses around EU.

We already know their problem has nothing to do with energy or the environment. They just hate bitcoin and want to slow down its adoption using any means they have. One day it is FUD about security, another day it is FUD about criminal usage, another day it is energy, etc.

So what? Mining industries can easily provide the data associated with environmental effects from their facilities. If required they can control these measures by periodic load shadings, maintenance day off, spreading the facilities across different regions of localities and what not. This will have re-distributed consumptions of energy, heat production (bi-product), and carbon emissions(?) if any.

I don't think such law is very big deal. In fact this is applicable to all industries irrespective of their field of work.

If they are that much worries, then can have following schemes for the mining industries;

If you install 1 miner then plant and grow 10 trees
If you have 100 miners then plant 1000 plants and grow.

This will also bring up some social work and reduction of carbon emission (?) if any from the mining industry.

There are some interesting snippets in the report which show that the government does at least recognize that bitcoin can help in the transition to 100% renewable energy. For example:

This is vital to a 100% renewable energy infrastructure. You can choose how much coal or gas to burn to meet response, but you can't choose how much sunlight there is how much wind there is. When there is an excess of energy being produced, bitcoin miners can utilize this and therefore the energy company makes money on electricity which would otherwise be completely wasted, and when there is an excess in demand bitcoin miners can temporarily scale back to allow supply and demand to balance. This mining usage will also subsidize the development of new renewable infrastructure which would otherwise be unprofitable due to a significant proportion of its production being wasted.

Methane is often vented to the atmosphere because the cost of doing something useful with it, such as building a huge pipeline to transport it, is too high. Methane is 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Bitcoin miners, by virtue of being completely mobile, can utilize this methane at source and reduce its emission in to the atmosphere.

I don't see this report as bad for bitcoin. They are simply saying that it is going to have to play by the same rules as every other industry in the country and start moving towards net zero emissions, and even pointing out areas where bitcoin mining will accelerate that movement.

I tried to read some of the article and it was not as bad as I had envisaged it to be. It sure leaned more into how much energy Bitcoin mining consumes and comparing it disproportionately to familiar things would pass a wrong message to some readers who do no research.
Bitcoin mining is already going green to an extent and can do so more in the coming years. I feel this should be highlighted more and also the need for PoW, which is far more secure than other means of validating blocks.

I was drawn to the part about a consensus on mining algorithm by the crypto-asset community:
There is an obvious consensus mechanism which is superior to others in PoW. But there is no crypto asset community to decide on which is best and altcoin devs experiment with different simulations.

- Jay -

We may just see another "bitcoin ban" front pages but there's little to no impact at all. Well, those cities or states that are conservative with their energy consumption will be the ones to be implementing on this.
But other than that, this might just be the same news about bitcoin being banned and then yet it had became less popular after a couple of months up to becoming none of a real concern from these regulators.

Just a stricter regulation, not seriously and last solution as a ban. You have a good finding. 

---

In addition, I don't think they have solid reasons to ban Proof of Work mining industry or in particular Bitcoin mining industry, because the percent of sustainable energy used in the industry is just a mildly smaller than other industries or at national or global scale. So if they go with a ban, that is simply not based on any valid evidence. People will look at it and say, it is biased by government's benefit, a kind of emotional decision.

Look carefully. The post says to facillitate clean energy, noise reduction, environmently sustainable miners and only if this fails they will slam Thor's hammer on them.

In other words, we are not actually in a dystopia yet, sorry naysayers.


The Queen Elizabeth tokens prove this as well as basically every other useless token that was made on the ETH, BSC, Doge blockchains. Tokens can be printed out of thin air, which creates an inflated volume. The price you have to pay for this (pun intended), is sinking prices with respect to the US dollar.

Well this could be interesting.  However, filter all those pages and layers of shit and IMHO seems like a backdoor to once again try to regulate Bitcoin by knee capping it.

Was reading the PDF.
And found this pic which is showing that is totally against the POW. And they are just coming to POS. And you know the shit ETH Merge is coming too.


And they are talking about the Electricity Crisis and approximately they are showing that whole fault is only (Crypto) oh no no no... Its Bitcoin...

But if we go through the world many are using Gas for mining and legalized Bitcoin mining.
Here is an example.

1. OIL COMPANIES IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO USE EXCESS GAS FOR BITCOIN MINING
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/middle-eastern-oil-companies-to-use-excess-gas-for-mining-bitcoin

Solar Energy systems also can be used to mine Bitcoin.

Here found one more table antiPoW.

It's going to be inevitable, despite it being total utter nonsense due to the fact that there are much bigger environmentally-deadly industries to regulate.

Always expect attacks from the regulators, and I'm going to bet that this will be next.

Let's ban bitcoin mining ... meanwhile new graphic cards made for gamers are about to hit the roof with power consumption GeForce RTX 4000 “Lovelace“ power draw might exceed 800 W. Just to run AAA game with 4k in 60 fps. Why not ban gaming? why not allow minesweeper and solitaire only as the most eco-friendly games?

"Based on our very rough estimates, we found that the worldwide electricity consumption of people playing video games is 46% higher than the total consumption of Bitcoin mining as of November 2019."
https://braiins.com/blog/bitcoin-mining-vs-gaming

What about warm baths? We can all take cold baths. Its even healthier for us. I bet that warm baths worldwide consume more energy than bitcoin.

I'm just kidding with all this, but I want to show only how much hypocrisy we live in that elites can ban/limit everything they want only because it does not fit their narrative. I don't understand why bitcoin is treated differently from others. Its only a customer of companies producing and selling electricity. It's their fault that energy they produce is dirty. Just like gamers are customers only, just like every single one of us is. No one check what percentage of your gaming PC energy consumption is made from renewables. No one force to buy and run 1 solar panel unit for every GTX 1060 or stronger GPU you have.

Once doing the Bitcoin mining business within the jurisdiction of USA can be so restrictive and nearly unprofitable, then miners will have no choice but to look elsewhere...yes for as long as mining can still be churning out money. There are many in the government right now who don't like the PoW aspect of Bitcoin and so they are using their power to kick Bitcoin mining away from the country. We should not be threatened with that because eventually as long as there is a demand, there can be a supply if not here then somewhere.

You mean market cap ratio.
Shitcoins like ethereum have huge supplies that has created a bloated and fake market capitalization hence giving them a bigger ratio. Bitcoin has about 19 million circulating coins and 0 premine while ETH has 122 million circulating coins with 72 million premine.
In other words the shitcoin called ETH has 6.4 times more supply than bitcoin but 0.08 its price.

they know very well renewable could not last in power crunching mining devices. if they are doing this, its their country  that will just be affected. other countries will continue mining using fossil fuels. but i wouldn't be surprising this law will cause conflict again to countries where miners are free to mine BTC.

this could be one the reason for declining BTC dominance also  because ETH seem to be the most preferred by the macro investors.

It's about time, a lot of other countries have already regulated bitcoin mining and they haven't done it yet over there. It's funny how they go at it from an energy standpoint at this point when they are also facing an energy "price" crisis.

first of all if initial plans go through, miners will have to use renewables more(not that difficult) where a mining farm wont exceed XXmw per location(not that difficult)

if these easy tasks cant be met to a standard government want..
in short america becomes not a good place to mine...
.. much like 2009-2020

yep america only became a highly notable mining location after 2020
so things will just go back to a era where america is not the main location to mine, basically a couple years ago

as for exchanges, well they might get told to drop btc like they did with monero. solution.. exchanges operate outside of america
..and those that cant migrate, see less exchange fee's by only trading altcoins

It appears that everything that the bitcoin antagonizers have speculated is becoming a reality. We cannot ignore this anymore. Also, we have already witnessed that the government does not stop with regulations as a way to regulate. They might also use their positions of power in creating laws as a weapon to attack bitcoin. I speculate another policy that the American government can create is a ban on all Asic imports.



The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Energy (DOE), and other federal agencies should provide technical assistance and initiate a collaborative process with states, communities, the crypto-asset industry, and others to develop effective, evidence-based environmental performance standards for the responsible design, development, and use of environmentally responsible crypto-asset technologies. These should include standards for very low energy intensities, low water usage, low noise generation, clean energy usage by operators, and standards that strengthen over time for additional carbon-free generation to match or exceed the additional electricity load of these facilities. Should these measures prove ineffective at reducing impacts, the Administration should explore executive actions, and Congress might consider legislation, to limit or eliminate the use of high energy intensity consensus mechanisms for crypto-asset mining. DOE and EPA should provide technical assistance to state public utility commissions, environmental protection agencies, and the crypto- asset industry to build capacity to minimize emissions, noise, water impacts, and negative economic impacts of crypto-asset mining; and to mitigate environmental injustices to overburdened communities.

Read in full https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/09-2022-Crypto-Assets-and-Climate-Report.pdf