Comment by deadfece

4 months ago

In Oklahoma, they tried to market a bitcoin farm project as a datacenter. It received a lot of opposition due to the noise levels anticipated.

The graft team tried to get the state government to give tax graft to "datacenters" but didn't define what a DC was - which could mean the graft might go to bitcoin farms as well.

I noticed that the article does not really distinguish between any of these.

Please excuse my English, graft is not my first language.

10 comments

deadfece

Reply
epistasis  4 months ago

I think noise pollution regulation would be a great way to stop undesired effects that spread from one property to another.

Unfortunately when it comes to land use, we have a tendency to block overall uses rather than blocking the negative effects of those uses. This prevents many solutions from ever being tried.

  • sorcerer-mar  4 months ago

    > Unfortunately when it comes to land use, we have a tendency to block overall uses rather than blocking the negative effects of those uses

    Probably because history is full of developers promising to mitigate certain negative consequences and then failing to do so. I'm as YIMBY as anyone, so this history of developers being awful matters a lot to me: it galvanizes the opposition.

    • epistasis  4 months ago

      Do you have examples of this? Where has the negative effect been banned (presumably with suitable penalties) and then ignored?

      I'm not that young but I have not seen examples of this.

      7 replies →