Thanks for your input. The problem is that the linked article (http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carbon-footprint/ http://pando.com/2013/1

Thanks for your input. The problem is that the linked article (http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carbon-footprint/ http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carb...) starts with wrong assumptions. > At today’s value of roughly $1,000 per bitcoin, the electricity consumed by the bitcoin mining ecosystem has an estimated carbon footprint [...] [of] 0.03 percent of the world’s total greenhouse gas output [...] If bitcoin’s value reaches $100,000, that impact will reach 3 percent of the world’s total [...]. The value of bitcoin is not at all related to the network's energy consumption. It's not even related to the network's hashrate, and even if it was, mining is becoming more and more energy-efficient. It's hard to take the article seriously after this.