3 ms·

Since one of the inherent properties of PoW cryptocurrencies is it doesn't matter where the mining takes place, mining will always take place in whichever count

Since one of the inherent properties of PoW cryptocurrencies is it doesn't matter where the mining takes place, mining will always take place in whichever country doesn't impose a carbon tax. Ironically they're much more "censorship resistant" to carbon taxes than actual attempts by major economies to ban their use (which would only need to be partially effective to squash the price bubble and by extension reduce incentive to spend on mining)

anonporridge 5y ago
That's already a problem. Developing nations are consuming an ever expanding amount of fossil fuels. And they're sure as hell not going to stop, because the advantage to their citizens of developing their infrastructure towards Western standards of living far outweighs projected threats of climate change. Developed countries are already making okish strides on decarbonizing, but how can we in the first world effectively decree that the developing world must halt or slow progress towards the lifestyles that we enjoy. That reeks of a new kind of colonialism, and simply won't go over well without the threat of global violence. The only way we'll actually make strides on decarbonization is with some kind of global carbon tax. I'm not going to pretend I know how we accomplish that, but if we can't, we're not going to mitigate climate change in any reasonable way.
cwkoss 5y ago
Geopolitical energy cost arbitrage is a major climate change issue, but I feel like it's disingenuous to focus on crypto as the main problem. The majority of these harms are in heavy industry, manufacturing, logistics, etc. I'd estimate only 1% of this problem can be attributed to cryptocurrency. If crypto was somehow globally banned, the problem would not be significantly diminished. If bitcoin eventually becomes responsible for 10%+ of dirty energy, only then would this argument be compelling to me.

anonporridge 5y ago

That's already a problem. Developing nations are consuming an ever expanding amount of fossil fuels. And they're sure as hell not going to stop, because the advantage to their citizens of developing their infrastructure towards Western standards of living far outweighs projected threats of climate change. Developed countries are already making okish strides on decarbonizing, but how can we in the first world effectively decree that the developing world must halt or slow progress towards the lifestyles that we enjoy. That reeks of a new kind of colonialism, and simply won't go over well without the threat of global violence. The only way we'll actually make strides on decarbonization is with some kind of global carbon tax. I'm not going to pretend I know how we accomplish that, but if we can't, we're not going to mitigate climate change in any reasonable way.

cwkoss 5y ago

Geopolitical energy cost arbitrage is a major climate change issue, but I feel like it's disingenuous to focus on crypto as the main problem. The majority of these harms are in heavy industry, manufacturing, logistics, etc. I'd estimate only 1% of this problem can be attributed to cryptocurrency. If crypto was somehow globally banned, the problem would not be significantly diminished. If bitcoin eventually becomes responsible for 10%+ of dirty energy, only then would this argument be compelling to me.