> No, it doesn't! Exactly the opposite! How? > Again: if a BitCoin miner generates 1 TWh/yr of their own electricity, how does that reduce the burning of foss

> No, it doesn't! Exactly the opposite! How? > Again: if a BitCoin miner generates 1 TWh/yr of their own electricity, how does that reduce the burning of fossil fuels? First of all, if a BitCoin miner can generate 1 TWh/year of their own electricity without burning fossil fuels, then the entire argument around Bitcoin electricity use is moot. Second of all, the only way a BitCoin miner can generate 1TWh/year of their own electricity is if they have access to the tools/infrastructure necessary to set up their own power generation — and the demand for that tooling/infrastructure stimulates the development and promulgation of it. > Likewise, if power companies create more green power to supply the needs of BitCoin miners, how does that reduce the burning of fossil fuels? You're simply consuming whatever new green energy you're creating. Again, because if you dust off your "economics" argument, when demand increases, cost increases. Then when cost increases, as long as supply is elastic, it increases to meet the demand. The demand for green energy, today, is increasing at a natural/slow pace, but if you have a financialized industry that demands high volumes of it, you supercharge the development of infrastructure on the supply side — enough that eventually the majority of electricity supply is green. > So the whole "it will make power companies produce more green energy, and therefore it's good for the planet" argument falls flat. You really haven't explained how. Your entire argument presupposes fixed supply. Maybe that's true, but you'll then have to make the case for why the supply of green energy (or tooling/infrastructure) is fixed. As it stands, right now, there's a lot of money to be made selling solar panels. If industries mobilize to cheaply produce easy-to-deploy solar panels at scale, that is good for everyone.