Everyone needs to ban Bitcoin... and likely other cryptocurrencies. Not only are they by far the biggest enablers of ransomware (which we're supposedly taking seriously now), but Bitcoin emissions alone could push global warming above 2°C. [1] Bitcoin already consumes 0.55% of energy produced globally. [2]
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say maybe we should in general ban things that are a certain amount less energy efficient (say, 5x more wasteful) than the best technology we've achieved for a similar purpose so far. And progressively tax anything that's moderately more wasteful (say, 2x-5x). It's bad enough that we have cars on roads that are twice as wasteful as they could be, let alone a transaction processing mechanism that is literally a million times more wasteful than our existing technology.
No, please don't tax something because it is wasteful or not, but tax something based on how much resources it uses. In fact, tax the resource usage not the activity.
Even an extremely efficient car uses a ton of energy to move around. New cars often have engines in the multiple hundred kW range, which is insane compared to any other appliance you own.
If fossil fuels were taxed properly, that would discourage using/wasting fossil fuels. But please don't tax based on what you feel is acceptable usage was wasteful usage, cause the atmosphere does not care if the CO2 came from kerosene on a plane bringing tourists to vacation, or if it was used to power the ambulance that brings you to the hospital.
But when we tax all fossil fuel uses equally and heavily, I'm sure the ambulances will still drive around cause they save lives, but weekend trips to the other side of the Atlantic will be a thing of the past.
> No, please don't tax something because it is wasteful or not, but tax something based on how much resources it uses.
"Wasteful" = "using more resources than it genuinely needs". We're saying very, very similar things here. I don't find the difference between them significant enough to be worth arguing about honestly. I'm just suggesting an alternative that I think might be more viable, but if we go with your proposal, that's enough progress to make me happy.
It's semantics, but in this case, semantics do matter. There's a real difference in result between taxing gasoline per gallon and taxing the ownership of a fuel-inefficient vehicle.
The latter is roughly equivalent to the US's CAFE standards and leads to gaming the system by manufacturers.
The former is much harder to game - either you use the gasoline (and paid the tax at purchase) or you don't. Doesn't matter (to the tax authority) what car you drive - only how much gasoline you burn.
> Are you going to create a commission which decides what a "genuine resource usage" is?
Uhm... if it's necessary, sure? I already suggested a starting point: the current state-of-the-art provides a baseline to compare against. If we need a commission to gauge this, then sure, how about have an agency like the EPA or DoE figure it out. We can even give a good name to products that meet high energy-efficiency standards... like, I don't know, maybe "Energy Star"?
...and the US military effectively backs the dollar, which makes this the energy footprint of the dollar.
meanwhile, gold stripmines the soil in poor countries, where children die in mines, while the loot is carried off to the west, AND it uses much more energy than bitcoin.
and bitcoin is technology to replace, at least partially, those two things. And like a car versus a bike, it does so with more utility: better to store, better to transport, better to divide into units.
and it can use energy anywhere, whereas banks and gold mining have to use it where there is gold and people to use banks, which means that energy for these uses is actually newly made for this purpose. Bitcoin often and increasingly uses energy that was made, but not used: 1/3 of all global energy production is produced and then just seeps into the metaphorical ground, which is necessary as a network safety measure. Bitcoin miners put their ASICs there and take it, meaning no additional energy was produced and the opposite of waste occured: it prevented waste. Not to speak of the fact that bitcoin incentivizes green energy, because solar and wind are problematic for everyday use (bc you're so highly dependent on the whims of nature). Bitcoin is not your dryer; it can run whenenever it happens to be there, thereby increasing the efficiency of renewables massively.
This whole argument suffers from a lot of ignorance about what's actually going on here.
This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that e.g. the US military wouldn't exist if the US used bitcoin rather than dollars? And similarly for other currency+military combos? That strikes me as really implausible.
I think the best representation of the argument is that if governments couldn’t print fiat they wouldn’t be able to fund huge militaries and we’d have less destructive wars.
It seems fairly utopian to me, given that wars existed on the gold standard too, and if they were less destructive it was for want of technology. But maybe if I held Bitcoin I’d be more inclined to believe it was the solution to world peace.
FDR confiscated all gold to thwart the Great Depression and fund the war effort, and froze bank accounts for a handful of days, a Bank Holiday. For better or worse, it would be much more difficult to do this with btc.
Let's hope we never get to test this hypothetical, because it might even be easier to confiscate BTC - certainly to merely destroy BTC, and thus raise the value of your own. When a physical force comes knocking, it's going to be tricky to resist sharing a key - and unlike physical stores of value, digital trails of ownership might make it quite a lot trickier to deny ownership; it really depends on how much information that occupying force has.
Also, it's trivial to freeze BTC accounts too; that just means controlling the network - which in the even of a physical occupation is going to be obvious anyhow.
Then there's the fact that occupiers may be able to engage in a 50% attack (assuming occupation is large scale and impacts many miners) - and may well force usage of their fork of the chain, even in absence of a global 50% control, making the whole thing rather tricky to predict.
Let's hope it never comes to that, but I'm certainly not convinced BTC would be immune from a physically occupying force's influence. I bet it depends hugely on the details of that occupation.
I think the argument is that the dollar would not be the worlds reserve currency if it was not for the US military. The value of the dollar is in part attributable to the US military. We know the dollar wont collapse and be worthless overnight because e.g Russia invaded the USA. This wont happen because of the US military, not because the dollar is inherently special.
I'm not saying you're wrong but of course it's not that easy. Using your argument we could ban all cars because there are bicycles and they are vastly more efficient.
Or we ban heating in houses because you can just wear warmer clothes instead.
No, you're just turning what I said into a strawman. A bike is far more limited in what it can achieve than a car. And home heating heats a lot more than just the people inside.
Note that I didn't claim it's easy to come up with a good way to do this. You might have to settle for some partial progress. But that doesn't mean I'm putting up a strawman either.
While I feel like the words you used caused some debate, if I’m understanding the premise correctly I think you’re on to something:
If a technology is objectively more wasteful than it could be it should be penalized, and as we move forward with newer/better/more efficient technologies the standards bar should raise with them.
For anyone who has further concerns: let’s imagine that we have a magic calculator that tells us the total and complete cost of anything, from the true local socioeconomic impact of extracting materials to the CO2 emitted in production to the cumulative future cost of disposing of it. And that we could use that as the measuring stick.
Do you take in to account the infrastructure and offices of new technology? Do you take in to account how many people does the new technology serve compared to existing? Do you take in to account how many services does the new technology provide compared to the existing?
And YouTube streams 1 billion hours of video a day, what's the carbon footprint of that? Is watching despacito or gangnam style really better for the world than a bitcoin transaction? Is it worse? Who is the arbiter if these decisions?
Of course, if you're going to include client power consumption, that's a different story... Then again, a youtube video is an actual desirable product in and of itself, whereas a bitcoin transaction is not; it's just a way to (perhaps in the future) acquire something desirable.
Ideally we'd price carbon conservatively (i.e. higher than necessary), and then this would all be a moot point. However, by the time we get all the relevant countries on board with that, and get democrats and republicans to sufficiently cooperate (even harder), the universe's heat death is likely nigh, so perhaps in the interim it's reasonable to just outright ban exceptionally pointless wasteful activities such as bitcoin mining.
Look just be honest with yourself, you were in a prime position to buy bitcoin early (you are on HN so you likely heard about it before, let's say 2013). And you didn't, so your vested interest is in it failing. The environmental considerations just give you the flag to rally around. Your comment history has plenty of negative mentions of cryptocurrency/BTC but I cannot find anything related to environmental concern that is not cryptocurrency related. I also have never seen a comment where you want to ban something, does that mean that bitcoin is the only " exceptionally pointless wasteful activity" that you know of? If so, even that should tell you something about your true motives, if not where do you protest about these other activities?
I don't protest the obvious. There's little discussion about the harms of global warming in general; this is a generally accepted fact, at least to most people I engage with. The same can not be said about cryptocurrencies and their harms; this is an argument worth having, precisely because people have not yet fully acknowledged the problems. Also: it's remarkable that you've so fully analyzed my personality in 5 minutes.
In any case, to reiterate my counterpoint (which you have not disputed, but given your ad hominem I assume you don't agree with): estimating at least an order of magnitude impact of bitcoin isn't that hard, so your suggestion that it's hopeless to compare somebody streaming gangnam style with a bitcoin transaction is unfounded. One can compare bitcoins environmental impacts with other environmental impacts.
> And you didn't, so your vested interest is in it failing.
Why does he have a "vested interest" in Bitcoin failing? Are you sure you know what "vested" means? :-)
Do you mean to say that he wants Bitcoin to fail because he's bitter?
We will see if Bitcoin is relevant in 5-10 years from now. My guess: it will be a niche thing with a very narrow set of uses.
If anything, you sound a bit like a Bitcoin supporter (maybe an investor?), so you sound more like someone who has a <<vested>> interest in it succeeding.
I know what vested means, there can be a financial element to it but that is not a requirement:
definition:
'a personal reason for involvement in an undertaking or situation'
The personal reason here may well be bitterness, but that was your word not mine.
If, in 2011, we were discussing what bitcoin succeeding looks like, I would have said that if it was worth 5 figures (and I would have meant low 5 figures, so $10,000) it had succeeded. If, alongside the value, my parents knew what it was (not through me) then it would have succeeded.
In truth I would also have expected it to take closer to 20 years to reach that point. So in my mind it has succeeded. It is still around over a decade later, it surpassed the dollar value I would have assigned success even without this latest runup. There are few people in the world, who have internet acccess, who have not heard of it.
So I disagree with you, because on metrics I would have measured it with in 2011 it has met and exceeded them. Therefore it has succeeded already. I have skin in the game, so perhaps I have a vested interest, but only in as much as it would make me more money than it already has. And I dont need more money. If it went to zero tomorrow my life would not change.
> literally a million times more wasteful than our existing technology
This is not a fair comparison. Did you count all the banking services and data centers? Also, cryptocurrencies provide features which banks can't provide, e.g., independence on a third party.
But a cryptocurrency-backed exchange does not provide independence of a third party; so a in the pretty implausible hypothetical that you'd ban systems so gratuitously inefficient, you could make the argument that peer-to-peer transactions are OK, but that case is harder to make for exchanges.
I mean, not that this kind of ban is likely to happen; it's probably not even a good idea (unless we can be much more specific about what counts as wasteful, and what counts as comparable existing technology, and have a way to make that simple, please no patent prior art search 2.0 nonsense).
Even if cryptocurrencies had unique features that some people demand, the fact remains that these cryptocurrencies could provide the same exact features without wasting enormous amounts of energy (e.g. by using a "proof of stake" mechanism). Therefore the wastefulness can't be justified on these grounds.
One energy-efficient approach is the one used by the Pi network:
- https://minepi.com/
The whitepaper is pretty detailed about how they avoid the proof of work and the energy waste associated:
- https://minepi.com/white-paper
If cryptos really make it in their ideological goal of a truly free capitalistic society, something like Pi which can be mined by everyone will have to win out over Bitcoin which can be "produced" only by already rich.
I have little faith in a coin that claims in its whitepaper "Pi creates a fixed supply of Pi for each person that joins the network up to the first 100 Million participants" without so much as mentioning Sybil attacks.
Based on some quick reading, Pi is a scam. There is no blockchain or 'mining' happening, they instead get you to watch ads on your phone every so often.
There are real, blockchain-based cryptocurrencies which are much more energy efficient than proof of work. Cardano currently being the biggest one by market cap. It's still a relatively 'new' space, but I hate seeing it crowded by so many scam products.
Even if you ban crypto exchanges and money transfers to them, you cannot ban a single entity called Bitcoin Co, nor you can ban individuals from possessing it.
You could potentially ban crypto miners from using the electrical energy, but that doesn't ban Bitcoin either.
Making laws that prohibit purchasing, selling or holding bitcoin, with penalties.
Laws already exist requiring gatekeepers of the financial system (e.g. Banks and payment processors) to monitor transactions on illegalities, e.g. money laundering. Bitcoin would just be added to the list. Banks are required to set-up their own systems for this. It'd be trivial for banks to find out which bank accounts are owned by exchanges or bitcoin companies like Coinbase, and close those bank accounts, as well as freeze any transactions to these bank accounts. New companies can't open new accounts. If you try to make transactions you get your money frozen/seized. And even if you hold bitcoin, to use your profits (e.g. to buy a house, a car, pay rent) you'd need to go back to dollars through a bank, or launder tons of cash, or find a counterparty to your transaction willing to illegally accept bitcoin e.g. when selling his house, all things extremely unlikely to happen at any scale by regular joes.
At that point the amount of capital flowing to bitcoin will massively decline and bitcoin plummets. Nobody is investing in an asset class speculatively if the only way to buy it is to go to a street corner and meet up with an Internet Guy with a bunch of cash. That's fine for buying drugs, it's not going to drive a trillion dollar market cap (like today) illegal virtual coin that's otherwise useless.
As everyone else is saying: ban the points of contact. It's basically going to look like the War On Drugs (ironic, for NL). And likewise, it won't be 100% effective.
All of the following are entirely feasible measures for "banning bitcoin" that are already applied to other things:
- directly ban sales or receipts through normal financial intermediaries (banks etc). Try to wire money to Coinbase and get prosecuted.
- directly ban advertising of cryptocurrency products (problem here is you hit the celebrities, good luck prosecuting Musk in NL)
- directly ban holding or making cryptocurrency transactions. Not very effective, but provides an additional charge that can be made against people who've been prosecuted and had their computers seized for other reasons (e.g. drugs, CP). Incidentally criminalizes paying ransoms!
- use all the anti-CP measures against Bitcoin related sites; put the exchanges and known network nodes on the IWF blocklist.
- put bitcoin related software on AV alert lists (I think this has already happened with miner software because it keeps getting installed by malware)
- add it to the list of things checked in border phone sweeps. I don't think NL does a lot of these, but you occasionally hear about the US doing them. Some countries have also started doing device searches as part of other police searches, e.g. https://www.scotland.police.uk/spa-media/zqxibu3s/cyber-kios... ; combine with the ban on crypto tech and this can be used to prosecute people for having cryptocurrency apps on their phones.
Does anyone else remember the "crypto is a munition" era? It used to be illegal to export actually secure crypto from the US, which meant in practice it was illegal to host it on US-based websites. I'm not sure it's possible to go back to that era, but it's possible to imagine github banning crypto-related apps due to international pressure.
I have a bridge to sell you. I mean, a big chunk of the market transactions are favors and unwritten agreements. Someone helps to close an important deal and gets some bitcoins later on an off the books wallet.
The point is that bitcoin exited before there where institutions built around it, you can ban those institutions you can ban coal power plants you can ban whatever you want people will still continue to use it the way they currently do.
Mine bitcoin on renewable energy not connected to the grid and transact with each other not large institutions, if you want to ban bitcoin you need to prevent the core value of bitcoin not just show off your fud.
Let's see.. i earn my wage with money. I pay my taxes with money. I pay everything with money. I can pay almost nothing with bitcoin and it's getting worse.
> people will still continue to use it [bitcoin] the way they currently do
They are using it for speculation and for ransomware. Seems like both of these uses will be hindered by outlawing all official exchanges.
The majority of bitcoin is mined directly on renewable energy because of the cost savings, they don't use the grid I dunno how the government would shut that down unless they just banned renewable energy LOL. The amount of fud around crypto is silly.
The main argument against crypto is actually an argument against the way we generate power. If our power generation wasn’t so dirty, this argument against crypto goes away.
Cheap plastic disposable goods shipped from China on polluting cargo ships are a huge source of environmental damage. This is a direct result of consumerism. Where is the plan to deal with that? Bitcoin energy use is just a stick used to beat it, it is not a genuine concern. Why? Because most people who raise the issue are not green environmentalists, they are just bitcoin detractors. They don't highlight the issues with energy use in other sectors, they don't worry about the emissions from concrete production and building etc. Why? Because complaining about them does not further their goal.
I agree, literally the only negative is it's current energy use, but even that has been blown out of proportion and has not been fairly compared with the energy use of other sectors and technologies.
> Cheap plastic disposable goods shipped from China on polluting cargo ships are a huge source of environmental damage
New regulations are here about polluting ships. Single use plastics are (progressively) being banned - in the EU they're heavily taxed and will be absolutely banned since ~2022.
You think China will care? they will keep producing whatever makes money until they are caught, and not just Chinese companies, plenty in the developing world will circumvent legislation. And in the US they just don't bother with regulations to disregard. The Mississippi River carries an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico each year, creating a “dead zone” in the Gulf each summer about the size of New Jersey.
This happens because there are no regulations to prevent the dumping of untreated waste into the Mississippi
Blanket statements like these come from privilege. That a supposedly vanishingly small amount of people use crypto to transact and safeguard the fruits of their labor is irrelevant because, well, I know I exist.
To me, the value Bitcoin brings to the table is much, much greater than the one from countries that enforce unjust embargoes and overthrow governments only to replace them with even worse dictators... and also pollute the planet.
Also, specifically on the second article you linked: it references the first and even mentions why such runaway growth necessitated by that argument wouldn't happen.
EDIT: Before some tries to gotcha me with the same old tired memes or accuses me of building up the typical "oh, but X uses more power than the entire crypto system" strawman argument, what I'm trying to say is: value is relative. If you have a comfortable life and live in a reasonably free country, Bitcoin is very likely to have negative value to you, as its cons outweigh its pros. But that's not going to be the same for the rest of the world, and blanket bans on things are reductionist and hardly ever get anywhere good, especially when you should be looking at why such thing exists.
These claims have both been debunked. The majority of energy used by bitcoin is renewable [1]. Ransomware was enabled by credit cards before bitcoin was a thing. The increase in ransomware is because of the increase in the value of that data not the ability to extort.
Bitcoin is a public ledger. I dont understand how a zero-privacy blockchain would be the biggest enabler of ransomware? Isnt TCP/IP a bigger enabler?
SHA-256 came out of the NSA. Didnt the FBI retrieve the Bitcoin from the pipeline ransomware attack? They have lots of tradecraft at their disposal that we cannot know of.
Well, a country can't _really_ ban bitcoin and other crypto currency because of its decentralised nature. As longs as there is usefulness to it, there will always be people vying to make it a thing. The governments can collectively make it unusable - prevent all financial institutions from recognising it, and never exchange their currency to these crypto coins. This way, sure bitcoins will continue to exist, and there will always be someone stealing power to mine them, but it becomes worthless without the ability to convert to usable currencies you can buy stuff with.
If BTC -> USD/EUR/etc becomes too difficult, bitcoin becomes like Monopoly money right?
Bitcoin is the biggest enabler of cheap renewable energy, gtfo with the list about bitcoin causing global warming. It is getting ridiculous.
Pollution causes fucking global warming, ships, cars industry concrete. This idiotic scapegoat of BTC is killing the planet is akin to the crying Indian campaign.
Its a misdirection to avoid talking about real causes and solutions to global warming.
Thats bs. Everything that requires energy advances global warming. Bitcoin is a disaster compared to any other value or money transfer. Everybody mining bitcoin is using the cheapest energy source available which currently is coal.
Get your facts right, stop destroying the world of our children!
> Bitcoin is a disaster compared to any other value or money transfer.
You mean to facilitate money transfer between banks it only take a bit of electricity. But you dont consider the needs of whole organisation called bank to work. Staff commuting, maintenance, running bills etc. All of that produces pollution. So your simple analogy suddenly is not that simple (as any simple explanation to complicated problem).
> stop destroying the world of our children!
Gtfo, what is this republican rally?? 'Think of the childed, oh no, oh woes!'
How about we stop fossil fuel lobbies attacking green initiatives, how about we stop cruse ship industry and mindless consumption from a cheap plastic crap to new electronics iterations every 1/2 a year. Wasteful packaging, imports of non-seasonal foods, rocket lunches of useless crap into orbit akin to star link at el. American army was running country wide program of air-conn desert camps for it troops for what 20 years. A fucking 24/7 AC of a desert not to mention about of carbon wasted shooting/bombing/occupying Afghanistan to literally zero effect.
What about those ''none issues'' ?? But no, the evil BTC is the only thing to fight to save the world for the children.
> You mean to facilitate money transfer between banks it only take a bit of electricity....
So nice to see that bitcoin is giving out loans. Is available to my grandmother. Can be used to pay at every corner in the city. Or does it?
> Gtfo, what is this republican rally??
I am always amused by the limited world view. Its not about democrats or republicans, in this world (you know, that thing outside the us?). There are more political views than their agendas.
> How about we stop fossil fuel lobbies attacking green initiatives, ...
It's nice that you know so many other things that should be addressed as well. But it's no reason not to stop bitcoin from wasting all that power.
Its funny that you say that and then present a 1 dimensional view of the world.
Haven't really addressed my point just running around the issues trying desperately to shift the goalpost. Address my actual point or don't waste my time.
How nice that all energy magically appears out of nowhere to generate the power needed by bitcoin. As if the power to heat your meal and home is suddently not needed anymore when you have your nice valuable bitcoins.
The world is already struggling to keep up with the rising power requirements from all the sectors, from production, households and transportation. One of the large problems moving to renewable power sources is, that it's hard to replace current power sources and keep up with the rising power demand. By increasing power demand, older power plants that are worse for the environment must be kept running for a longer time.
the comment I replied to said all bitcoin mining is done exclusively with coal. I never made claims, I merely pointed out the original statement was incorrect and offered evidence to support it.
So what is your point in relation to that? Am I wrong? Is my evidence not sufficient? Do you also believe all bitcoin mining is powered by coal?
I dont assume that bitcoin is only powered by coal. Some website mentioned 85%. With its 150 TWh it uses thats a 130TWh in from coal power plants. Thats about 24 Coal power plants that could be shut down, if bitcoin would disappear today (usa has 241 coal power plants with approximately 1300 THw produced). I do think that will make a difference, especially because the power demand of bitcoin is getting worse.
>Everybody mining bitcoin is using the cheapest energy source available which currently is coal.
'Some website said...' some other website said vaccines will make my arm magnetic. Doesn't make it true. Don't spout nonsense just because you agree with it, check the veracity of the statement first.
>Thats about 24 Coal power plants that could be shut down, if bitcoin would disappear today
No they wouldn't. They existed before bitcoin, they will exist even if bitcoin is outlawed and shut down. The demand would come from elsewhere, but if you understand power generation you would also know that gas and coal power stations are used to keep a base level of power on the grid, solar doesn't generate at night and wind doesn't always blow. Hydro power cannot be transported everywhere it is needed. So coal, gas and nuclear make up the rest. Until we get better storage they will continue to be used and required.
Honestly this comment of yours has just highlighted how little you know about the subject. You don't even mention which website but I can guess it's digiconomist, which has been debunked before. That site relies on showing extreme figures to get page views.
I suppose by this you mean Bitcoin incentivizes investment in ever-cheaper electricity generation, but does this actually result in cheaper electricity for other purposes, or would the Bitcoin demand simply expand to consume all of that cheap electricity?
Global warming above 2°C will happen just by the nature of n-th order effects. Trees burning, methane stored in tundra getting released can have decades of CO2 equivalent emissions compared to 1 human civilization year.
Bitcoin has a small effect compared to everything else we do and everything else that will happen.
Human civilization isn't exactly living as optimal as possible and I do not see why Bitcoin needs to be the thing we optimize.
There's Las Vegas, having AC 24/7, cooling the streets from open casino doors. There's individuals feasting on steaks every single day, every single meal.
Looking through the eyes of a frugal optimizer, should we ban that too?
Although, which one do you think is easier to ban?
If cryptocurrencies were to disappear tomorrow, would the everyday life change? And if we ban meat? Which one do you think will encounter the most resistance? So which one is the most feasible? And then, which one do you think has the best return on investment?
Best return on investment is most definitely finding new ways to produce energy and new ways to sequester greenhouse gases.
Anything else is a minor dampener to an exponential process.
Getting rid of Bitcoin is absolutely nothing compared to our exponentially increasing energy needs.
Lowering greenhouse emissions to 0 today would still result in dire consequences when the temperature increase comes, just from the massive n-th order effects.
I have no idea how the opinion of Bitcoin being so detrimental to climate came to fruition and how it's considered plausible at all.
It came to fruition because it’s creating vast new wealth in a fashion that is directly competitive to old wealth. It’s also easy because climate change is a real, pressing existential crisis. Take this with the caveat that most people won’t think past the headline, so lots of people don’t get to the obvious conclusion of “the way we generate power is the root problem”
Lowering to zero doesn’t solve the problem, but it would help give us a longer runway.
Whether we develop new clean energies without reducing our energy consumption, or we reduce our consumption while doing the development, can make the difference between catastrophic failure and hope.
But should we focus our efforts banning things that won’t change the way people have to live? That seems like an easy way to fail.
Further, Bitcoin is not the main issue. BTC being clean or dirty is based on the underlying issue of dirty power generation. How about we ban dirty power generation instead? Attack the actual, underlying problem.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0321-8
[2] https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actuall...