I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (or at best, negligible, assuming that the mining equipment was originally connected to a dirty grid, rather than new equipment) (and would not be subject to carbon tax).
Which is more _wasteful_? I would argue Bitcoin, and dangerously so, because its upper bound of potential energy usage is infinite.
Coal, on the other hand, is not wasted (burning coal without using the heat would be stupidity).
Even when coal is phased out, Bitcoin may still be there, causing unnecessary strain on the infrastructure.
Bitcoin will find the cheapest energy and set it on fire, if the price is right. And the heat produced by the equipment also wasted as byproduct due to convenience/commercial factors.
I can imagine it already contributes to energy poverty, alongside other issues, in developing nations.
> they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure
A company will do whatever is most profitable (build transmission or build generation). Which is fine, given the bad things (e.g. coal) were taxed out of profitability.
I don't believe it does. The same phenomenon can occur with a renewable energy source. Remote renewable energy source (solar, hydro etc), not grid connected, could attract the same sort of Bitcoin mining system and even claim to be 'green' - when in fact they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure to move the energy to the grid, so it might be a net-negative environmental benefit (or at best, negligible, assuming that the mining equipment was originally connected to a dirty grid, rather than new equipment) (and would not be subject to carbon tax).
Thought experiment: If you had to ban one of these, which would you pick?
bitcoin vs coal
One of them is responsible for a significant percentage of global carbon emissions and the other is not.
I don't favor bans, but at least that thought experiment should indicate which one to go after in some way (e.g. taxes).
I think emissions are a different issue.
Which is more _wasteful_? I would argue Bitcoin, and dangerously so, because its upper bound of potential energy usage is infinite.
Coal, on the other hand, is not wasted (burning coal without using the heat would be stupidity).
Even when coal is phased out, Bitcoin may still be there, causing unnecessary strain on the infrastructure. Bitcoin will find the cheapest energy and set it on fire, if the price is right. And the heat produced by the equipment also wasted as byproduct due to convenience/commercial factors. I can imagine it already contributes to energy poverty, alongside other issues, in developing nations.
1 reply →
> they are reducing the commercial attractiveness of building the infrastructure
A company will do whatever is most profitable (build transmission or build generation). Which is fine, given the bad things (e.g. coal) were taxed out of profitability.