> Another poster here (who lives there) says the local government also offered this company a tax break when they moved in. Sounds like the government doesn't a

> Another poster here (who lives there) says the local government also offered this company a tax break when they moved in. Sounds like the government doesn't actually have the best interests of its citizens in mind. That was likely because they didn't expect it to be noisy. This is something that is relatively easily fixed by adding more sound insulation to the building. If the fine is too low to encourage this, then that is a problem with the law enforcement, not bitcoin mining. > If their electricity usage requires building new power plants and/or fortifying existing grid connections or transmission lines, they should bear the cost of that work, alone. Residents should not be seeing higher electricity costs because of companies like this, but the article claims they are. Would you say the same for data centres? Should computer gamers be forced to pay for the power plants that supply the energy that they used? Why are you singling out one particular use of energy? If its using a lot of energy, then it's also paying for a lot of energy, and likely very profitable energy as it's a constant demand rather than volatile which can be very wasteful for production. > You keep bringing this up, but seem to have no idea how society works: governments and citizens have that right. I keep bringing it up, because they do not have that right. Governments can try to enforce legislation, but if it's unlawful/unconstitutional then they will fail assuming the judicial system is correctly independent. If I do something with energy that I have fairly obtained and what I do does not harm anyone else (which hashing data does not, just as computer gaming doesn't) then attempts to stop me would be a breach of my peace and I could and would, sue for damages.