Well this just has to be them chancing their arm...

Here are some other ways that they could use this logic to chance their arm:

"I don't see why I'm to blame, the car manufacturer made the car. I just drove it through the crowd because I was late for a meeting!"

"I'm pretty sure it's the chemical company's fault, I just thought arsenic would bring a nice almond taste to my bakery's bread!"

"Hey, don't blame me - it's the knife manufacturer that's responsible for the stabbings!"

"Don't look at me. It was the pie makers fault. It's their fault the clown got a well timed comedic pie to the face"

Only in this analogy, the knife causes injuries during its manufacture, not after it has been purchased. This might not make a difference in some philosophical analysies. Harm is harm.

However, it might affect who the philosophers argue is responsible to preventing and mitigating the harm. If I buy a pie in the shop, I know less about the supply chain that the pie maker does - I don't know if his dolphin noses are ethically sourced or not - so maybe the onus of responsibility lies with him.

Then again, there is an argument for rationing - yes, drink water from your tap, but don't take hour-long showers.

However, rationing is moot if it can't be enforced - and enforcement is often easier to do at the point of sale than it is at the point of use.

Then again... etc... And on the other hand...

So a system that is mindbogglingly inefficient and requires gigawatts of power to pretty much do not a great deal blame the electricity producers.

Everything about crypto-mining is ridiculous. Whilst I am sure there maybe some uses for blockchain, it has to become efficient and crypto is just insane in the power usage.

There really are far better things the time, money and resources could be used on.

I suppose in their case such a disconnection from reality is to be expected.

Bitcoin miners have no emissions whatsoever at the location of mining

Funny how they forgot the end of that sentence.

It's like leaving the heating and air-conditioning on max all year round and claiming there's no emissions cost. The blind spot these people parade is simply incredible.

The "blind spot" is in the fact that it actually pays to waste electrical energy at this scale and be rewarded for it.

I do understand one point the Bitcoin supporters are making, which is, all datacenters use a lot of power. So why is it OK to use a ton of power to train an AI model, or to run an e-commerce site, but not to mine cryptocurrency? Certainly there is an argument to be made to make crypto mining more energy efficient, but that argument can be made about any form of energy consumption.

The argument that seems to be being made from the regulators is, what is the societal usefulness of crypto mining that justifies the energy expenditure? AKA if I don't use it or know what it is, is it really relevant/important/useful? Once again, I could make the same argument for Google or Facebook building a massive AI to crunch data whose sole purpose is shoveling ads. At the moment it's simply a process of 'energy in, money out'.

Clearly stating that its up to the energy companies to provide clean energy, "not my fault guv" is complete bollocks.

So why is it OK to use a ton of power to train an AI model, or to run an e-commerce site, but not to mine cryptocurrency?

E-commerce sites and AI systems do useful things. Cryptocurrency mining does nothing except enable Ponzi scheme operators and other criminals.

> The enthusiasts are all invested.

I'm not invested. However I find the following point interesting:

There is no way for me to prove I am *not* invested in Bitcoin. Just as you can not prove today that there is *not* a teapot floating beyond the orbit of Mars (Russell's Teapot).

(My reasons for not investing are because I don't understand all my biases and levers. Sometimes I'm aware of a feeling of 'If only I'd invested when...', and it seems obvious that this emotional state isn't likely useful for rational decisions. )

"There is no way for me to prove I am *not* invested in Bitcoin"

I don't think any proof is required, just for you to declare (honestly) if you are invested or not. If you don't use, own or trade bitcoin, or have any dependence on someone who does, then you can justifiably say you are not invested.

Granted, this ignores the possibility that for instance, you might have some conventional monetary dealings with someone who also uses bitcoins, but to say that makes you invested would be tenuous.

Well my reasons for not investing in funny money is because I am fully aware that the field is full of thieves and scammers and I don't want to give up my hard-earned to them.

Each to his own, I guess.

I was briefly surprised that anyone could manage to tell this kind of bullcarp with a straight face.

Then I remembered that we're living in the post-truth age - you could claim the moon is made of cheese, and you'd quickly find some people cheering you, some scientists backing you, and some politician speaking for you.

Claiming that wasting massive amounts of power is not, y'know, wasting massive amounts of power, is small fries these days.

On the contrary, they do spew out a load of hot air themselves.

Although they will argue that for getting rid of the literal hot air they "just purchase the electricity" to run their aircons.

The other form of hot air they hork up also needlessly takes energy to counter.

If it's all the same to these crypto mining jerks I'll just blame them. They can prattle on about building power stations & mining operations on the side of volcanoes or whatever libertarian fever dreams their minds can come up with, but the reality right now is they're using inordinate amounts of power to mine for digital scrip. Crypto currencies need to be heavily regulated and favour "proof of stake" style currencies which at least use a lot less power than the traditional mined "proof of work" style currencies.

> Crypto currencies need to be heavily regulated

As soon as it has a regulator it doesn't need the crypto bit. If there is an authority that everybody trusts, then it might as well keep the ledger centrally and save everyone else the bother.

I'm not defending crypto per se or negating your criticisms of it. I just wanted to clarify what your proposed solution amounts to in the eyes of many crypto people.

Regulation means a legal framework and a set of rules for any financial institution that wants to trade in that "currency". A definition of what digital currency is - is it money or property or what? - rules for money/property laundering, auditing, deposit / withdrawal, foreign transactions, marketing, complaints & ombudsmen. Plus tweaks to any regulations concerning bank deposit guarantees, ownership, custodianship, theft, fraud, etc.

And most importantly, energy consumption rules. e.g. a CO2 tax on transactions. This would naturally favour "proof of stake" style currencies and put "proof of work" currencies at a severe disadvantage.

Well, technically they're correct, however, they're wrong.

Would they be content to run their mining rigs only when there's a surplus of wind and solar power, though?

"Would they be content to run their mining rigs only when there's a surplus of wind and solar power, though?"

I've actually read articles about some mining operations that set up in areas of high renewables generation. When generation is high, cost goes low so they operate on cheap energy when it is plentiful. That also makes sense since as a miner since power cost is their major cost.

One other that I've seen is with regard to flare-off gas in oil wells. In some cases it's not technically or commercially feasible to bottle up / pipe out the gas, but environmental rules limit the amount of gas that can be flared off. So it's anyway gas that would be burnt, and if the drillers can't get rid of enough gas, they can't pump more oil. So some miners have colocated their rigs with generators that use the excess gas (which they get for free, or in some cases even get paid to burn)

I would guess that these are outliers though.

If I wanted to make a lot of money, I would want to do it because I would want to cash it in for goods and services in a few decades - likely fine food and medical care.

This suggests that I want to invest in a system that won't inflate the cost (relative to my saved wealth) of medical care. Which suggests I need to invest in today's babies who will grow up to be doctors and all those who help doctors and supply them with goods and services. Schools, hospitals, parks and clean air so they don't emigrate somewhere nicer to live.

And you know what doctors are like for helping the needy. So it makes sense to invest in a system that leaves fewer people in need, if I want to get a doctor for a reasonable price.

But what is the point - when it is harming (or allegedly if you work for fox news) the environment , utterly pointless and futile and causing harm to others that actually need the power for running of I don't know the rest of the useful economy and essential services - of even thinking of defending the mining of cryptocurrency?

If the major economies basically decided that any attempt to trade cryptocurrency or to convert them into tangible assets was done with the intent of tax evasion and/or money laundering, the value would crash, people would stop "mining" and wasting valuable electricity and killing the planet in this particularly obscene manner.

I agree, funny money should be banned, if only because of the sheer amount of criminal activity that happens because of it.