The real problem people have isn't with consumers of energy. The problem is that some forms of electricity production put carbon in to the atmosphere. If we don't like that, we should make that form of energy production cost prohibitive by taxing it, requiring offsets.
Conversation
Or, all major Bitcoin actors (exchanges, miners, etc.) group together and buy carbon capture services?
2
I think it's better to put this kind of thing on the producers of carbon rather than all consumers of electricity. If you're going to put it on consumers, where do you draw the line? Consumers generally don't know the provenance of their electricity. Tax it at the source.
2
4
Agree 100%. Dig it up, burn it and pump it into the air has been the mantra of the energy business since the very beginning of the industrial revolution. And our political leaders have been bought.
But big consumers of electricity have a voice too. They should use it more.
1
3
It's hard for consumers to voluntarily pick a more expensive option while there is no disadvantage to competitors using the cheaper option. It might not even be long-term viable. Governments need to intervene to level the playing field and align taxes/pricing with social costs.
2
Big consumers (i.e. businesses, factories, etc.) already put pressure on electricity producers about how that energy is produced through public policy and sustainability programs.
There is nothing to stop the mining industry doing the same publicly.
It all helps. Tax too.
1
3
In fact, that would be good PR as a baseline. Shift the blame to producers rather than consumers.
The "Clean-Energy Mining Coalition".
Probably a good idea anyway.
2
3
Isn't there a way to become more energy efficient?
Because mining needs to be electricity intense, because that's what makes the network safe.
As we all know energy doesn't disappear, but we just lack the tech so far, to produce more than enough electricity.
But...
2
1
When electricity isn't scarce, wouldn't the security of a PoW Blockchain not just be undermined as an attacker just can use more energy thant the other miners use to become a bigger vote on the network? I mean then it's just PoS with extra steps....
1
Like who can research, buy and install the fastest the most efficient mining equipment... And then we just have a problem of other ressource scarcity (for the equipment)...
1
Yes, if you had unlimited, free electricity, you would then just be limited by supply of mining equipment, which is very centralized. If we get to the point of a PoW chain replacing fiat currencies, chip fabs might be regulated like nukes.
I don't think that electricity will ever be free. There will always be a cost to produce it, store it and distribute it.
But if cheap enough, 1kw in electricity + 1kw in carbon sequesterization would be good for the world.
1
3
I guess my key point is that the mining industry could be much more of an active political force for the shift to renewables, perhaps get behind an exponential fusion project and help fix its image in the eyes of the FUDers out there.
2
1
Show replies