41–50 of 296 posts
I also predict that cryptocurrencies as a whole will suffer from that due to the inability of the medias to understand that Bitcoin is not representative of all blockchain technologies.
It’s a shame because today most modern cryptocurrencies are not based on proof of work.
"If we were to allow extensive mining of crypto-assets in Sweden, there is a risk that the renewable energy available to us will be insufficient to cover the required climate transition that we need to make. This energy is urgently required for the development of fossil-free steel, large-scale battery manufacturing and the electrification of our transport sector. Based on estimates from Cambridge University, it is cu…
This merely pushes Bitcoin mining to countries that do not have this kind of regulation (and probably have less renewable energy).
But yes, an international treaty banning PoW crypto mining would be more effective. Then confiscate the equipment and use it to attack the networks.
Crypto mining, specifically. Title needs to be updated.
Extra specifically: Proof of Work cryptocurrency mining. > Our conclusion is that policy measures are required to address the harms caused by the proof of work mining method. It is important that both Sweden and the EU can use our renewable energy where it provides the greatest benefit for society as a whole.
We don't want you using your energy for unapproved computations!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is nonsensical. If you want to tax carbon, tax it regardless what it is used for. What you are describing penalizes somebody who uses clean energy for mining and ignores somebody who uses coal power for running his bot farm.
Using clean energy for mining still increases the total demand for electricity which is going to result in more dirty energy production no matter what.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But in this case the negative externalities do not come from the mining but from the energy generation. So that is the level where the externalities should be priced in.
In the current environment, you can't separate energy usage from energy generation in terms of externalities. Electrical power is something like a fungible asset, so even if you are using 100% green power (which doesn't really exist), you're still increasing demand for electricity overall, which will result in more carbon-intensive power generation in general. In other words, decreasing power consumption is as import…
Seems logical and enforceable.
"If we were to allow extensive mining of crypto-assets in Sweden, there is a risk that the renewable energy available to us will be insufficient to cover the required climate transition that we need to make. This energy is urgently required for the development of fossil-free steel, large-scale battery manufacturing and the electrification of our transport sector. Based on estimates from Cambridge University, it is cu…
Nuclear is clean and sustainable and can allow people to mine bitcoin and even heat their homes, which seems to be a problem currently in some regions of Europe.