No, some companies care about the environment, their image and profitability. It's unlikely bitcoin will be the best option for any of those in the long run.

ETH has had a higher return than BTC over the last 1 & 5 years. Tesla's market cap is down since announcing their BTC purchase and their environmental image has taken a hit with more potential customers than they gained by adopting btc- https://mattelston.com/2021/03/24/teslas-bitcoin-folies/

Getting long and getting loud has been a commonly accepted tactic on Wall Street. Musk has made some questionable tweets about Tesla shares https://mattelston.com/2021/02/10/elon-musk-a-reverse-psychology-genius/ (as well as his going private at $420/share tweet)
and been chastised by the SEC .

In the case of crypto, I think Tesla backed the wrong coin,
https://mattelston.com/2021/03/24/teslas-bitcoin-folies/
but if the SEC gave Musk only a slap on the wrist for past tweets involving his own company, its likely they will go even lighter re btc.

This project is intriguing, but lots of unanswered questions.

Does anyone have info on who the top token holders are? https://etherscan.io/token/0x3d90feec1ec985a9f09d2269af0f77195e542297#balances
(I know the 40 M is a holdback to convert Co2 to Co2b, but who are the other top holders?)

To clarify, when I said stop mining, I meant stop offering new BTC as a mining reward and only give the nodes/validators transaction fees (which is how I assume it will work after 2140).  Assuming that the system will stay secure as mining rewards are halved every 4 years and eliminated entirely after 2140, why can't the mining rewards be eliminated sooner?

In terms of scarcity of money, wouldn't BTC be more scarce if no new BTC were being issued? And isn't it the code that determines how much new BTC is issued and not the actual amount of electricity consumed? Back in the early days, hardly any electricity was being used and miners were getting 50 BTC. Now, a ton of electricity is being used and they are getting 6.25, right? (I do get that high price equals more miners, which, per the code, equals harder puzzles to solve). 

Assuming you are correct about miners not running their rigs without new BTC, what will happen to bitcoin after 2140 when there are only transaction fees? It seems to me that some miners will indeed shut their rigs down (or simply not replace them as they stop working). This will result in a downward adjustment to the difficulty and/or an increase in total fees until it reaches some sort of balance where it becomes profitable enough to run a node just on the transaction fees received. BUT, if bitcoin is relying on the amount of electricity used as its primary line of defense from a 51% attack, won't this attack be easier and more profitable to pull off if the number of miners drops and/or the difficulty adjustment goes down leading into and after 2140 assuming that the price goes up from here?

Yes, I've read the Whitepaper. But, I see a few issues with it as a peer to peer payments system that cuts out 3rd parties:

1. If you don't own bitcoin how do you get it without going to a 3rd party financial intermediary? (Yes, I realize that some mined it in the early days and some have even gotten paid in BTC, but that is a pretty small % of the population)
2. What if you want to make a quick transaction with a peer? Wouldn't shorter block times make it more useful?
3. What if you want to make a small transaction with a peer? Aren't the transaction fees high?

As a payment system, I see BTC best suited for larger transactions where anonymity is more important than speed.

Currently, BTC is adding ~328,500 new coins a year and spending tremendous amounts of energy to do so. If you cut new supply, wouldn't the price go up faster? I know that people are going to say that it is the miners who provide security to the network, but why can't the post 2140 plan be implemented sooner (given how quickly bitcoin has been able to grow)?

For most, BTC is not used as an everyday transactional currency and has a low number of TPS (7?) because of the 10 minute block intervals. Wouldn't BTC's usefulness as a transactional currency increase if transactions could be confirmed quicker?

I think you missed my point.


The supply of BTC is growing faster than NANO. If people decided to move away from a coin with a growing supply (naturally inflationary assuming demand stays constant), like BTC, into a coin that has no future supply growth, like NANO...its not the total number of coins that is important, it is how fast the supply is growing (or not growing) that gives a DIGITAL currency actual scarcity value (while perception and demand considerations play a big role on the other side of the supply/demand equations).  

You're right that in the last 170 years or so, a very small fraction of human existence, new technologies and lifestyle choices (not to mention a rising population) have been putting a growing ecological strain on the planet. In recent decades, machines have been doing more physical work and humans less (one of the reasons for weight gains). For many, computers are starting to take the place of exercising their own brain. The planet doesn't really need healthy humans to survive, but maybe we need a healthy planet?

Some people look at these things as a problems while others don't. Some of the most polluting industries have reduced their ecological footprints in recent years while bitcoin's has been increasing exponentially.   

Apologies if this has already been asked, but if BTC and i.e. NANO both see their market caps increase $10 billion in the next year, what happens to each of their prices?

?
Most people will get this wrong because they suck at math   or don't fully understand bitcoin.
?



Answer: NANO goes up 15+ X and BTC drops slightly in price! (based on 3/21/21 being the start date and no changes in protocols over the next year)

To answer the OP, as more people hold more and more of an asset, the pool of new buyers gets smaller and the pool of potential sellers increases (but that is no guarantee that people buy or sell).

I mostly agree with what you have posted here @coinycoiny. Don't forget that people will close their mind and grasp at any straw to protect what they perceive as their economic interests...often times this is done subconsciously. Lot's of what is being said reminds me of Big Tabaco trying to paint smoking as healthy or the Oil & Gas industry trying to confuse the climate change debate. What most BTC holders don't understand is that they can sell BTC and switch to a greener crypto that has more potential upside and less environmental baggage.

@fillippone All your defenses to accusation 1 basically say that other human activities also use electricity that emit greenhouse gases, so why pick on bitcoin. To someone who believes that GHG emission is leading us towards a climate disaster (i.e. https://www.google.com/books/edition/How_to_Avoid_a_Climate_Disaster/pHK0DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover), that’s like saying “Yes, your honor, I   ______ (stole money, cheated on my taxes, beat my wife, etc.) but lots of my neighbors do the same thing.” It’s my believe that all industries need to get to net zero as soon as possible. Some are trying harder than others. People’s fascination with bitcoin put it in the news and its INCREASING CARBON FOOTPRINT put it in the crosshairs.  

In 1.2 you say “According to data from the Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index devices kept on standby, in the United States alone, could power the bitcoin network for more than a year and a half. (a figure that has been constantly decreasing)” Are you saying that the number of years is going down? If so, that means that the amount of electrical consumption by standby devices is going down and/or the amount of power used by the bitcoin network is going up.

1.4 What gives you and other humans more enjoyment, watching bitcoin get mined or watching Netflix?

Your defenses to the Accusation that “Miners in China ravage the environment to produce Bitcoin. A large part of electricity production in China is made with fossil sources, especially coal, and the ecological footprint of Bitcoin is unsustainable” are more nuanced.

• 1. Environmentalists would say that it is a good thing and NOT A WASTE for coal to stay in the ground where it has sequestered carbon for many years.
  
  2. Yes, SOME bitcoin mining uses green sources that would otherwise be wasted.
  
  3. According to your link, one study estimated 72% of mining energy came from non-renewable sources (like coal and nuclear), while another, that you cited, had the figure at 61%. In either case, the majority is coming from unpopular sources that either emit GHG or produce hazardous waste that has to be stored for multiple generations.
  
  4. Yes, bitcoin does help the profits of the energy industry.
  
  5. Yes, there are ways for the energy industry to get more efficient. Some blockchain applications may help with this. See also 1.4 as many would say there are more beneficial ways to use computing power in the positive ways you suggest that the bitcoin network may be doing currently or in the future.

   

Accusation- “The Bitcoin network is maximally inefficient. PoW leads to the consumption of a huge amount of energy for each Bitcoin transaction if for example, we compare it with VISA.”

• 1.Aren’t there more energy efficient ways to secure a network?
  
  2. Yes, miners are trying to use the most efficient computing power and lowest cost of energy, regardless of source. When minors upgrade from one computer source to another (or replace an ASIC) lots of e-waste is created.
  
  3. Yes, lots of industries have negative externalities that should be better factored in. Emissions/Pollution fees that charges all polluters which is then returned equally to all individuals would help incentivize less pollution and be a net benefit to those that cause less than their fair share. As you mention with bitcoin, it is not just the transactions that lead to CO2 emissions, but also securing the network for anyone that holds BTC. This is why I suggested that governments may tax holders in cases where the miners are outside their jurisdiction (the rational being that those importing a polluting product should not get a free pass just because they don’t purchase locally). https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5323833.0
  
  4. Yes, per the Bitcoin whitepaper, the system is designed to use lots of energy.
  
  5. Again, two wrongs don’t make a right. Gold isn’t green either and should also be subject to pollution/carbon/environmental fees. My guess is that gold hasn’t exponentially increased its GHG emissions in the last 5 years like bitcoin, but they should still look to be going to net zero and pay for any negative externalities. There are those that object to gold (I.e. Now, https://www.earthworks.org/campaigns/no-dirty-gold/impacts/ and before bitcoin was in the crosshairs https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/environmental-disaster-gold-industry-180949762/) and the US prohibited the hording of gold in 1933 (albeit for economic and not environmental reasons). As a side note, if you stopped gold mining, the price might go up and additional ecological issues would be virtually eliminated (but long term effects of past mining would still present a problem)...with BTC, as you point out, the network relies on miners indefinitely for security purposes.

Yes, its unfair to single out bitcoin rather than have broad rules/fees/taxes that apply equally to everyone, but with more people concerned about climate change, no broad self-regulation from the bitcoin community on electrical sources, and the fact that electrical use is DESIGNED TO GO UP as the price goes up (regardless of how much utility it is providing), bitcoin will stay in the environmental crosshairs until something changes. Having control over money is power, and governments could certainly use bitcoin's environmental shortcomings as an excuse to regulate and take back that power if they feel BTC is a threat. Smarter for the crypto community to proactively find a greener horse to back (or for the bitcoin industry to clean up its act ASAP)

I tend to agree with you, but you never know with politicians. While one French politician is signing a petition to hold BTC, India is talking about banning crytos altogether.

To me, the head scratcher is Musk. I think he could have made even more profit for Tesla by buying and endorsing a smaller, greener cryto than BTC.

There are a lot of companies that are trying to stay politically ahead of and reduce their carbon footprints. I think the bitcoin community would be wise to do the same, but is it the whales or miners who control things?

Haven't mining equipment manufacturers improved energy efficiency the past decade? The problem is that it's taking more and more hashing power to mine less bicoin, so overall, the miners are emitting more green house gases. This is likely to continue if the BTC price continues to rise.  Bitcoin is ingenious, but this is one of its design flaws. Can you name any other industry where the manufacturing output has gone down over 85% in the past decade, but seen its green house gas emissions go up exponentially?

The question the BTC community should be asking is what is the best way for bitcoin to quickly reduce its green house gas emissions back to its 2015 level?
1. Carbon Tax
2. Code/Protocol Change
3. Price Decrease
4. Something Else

I agree with those who say a carbon tax should, be applied to all activities, not just btc mining. It was pointed out by @aoluain that many European countries already do this. How much btc mining takes place in countries with high carbon taxes like Sweden? My guess is that it's lower than the % of btc owned by residents of these countries.

What if these countries determined that buying/holding btc from foreign minors who use untaxed fossil fuel generated electricity was a loophole (as @odolvlobo alluded to) they wanted to close as these foreign carbon emissions affect their citizens? The US has very complex laws to try to tax foreign profits of their citizens, so why wouldn't environmentally conscious countries also place carbon taxes on their citizens who consume carbon intensive goods manufactured abroad?

Good points so far.

While I tend to favor less government intervention rather than more, I do feel one of the roles of government is to help factor in external costs into prices in cases where free market prices do not include these costs. Pollution is often times an external cost that is not included in free market price (and is not limited to BTC, as many have pointed out).

One reason I suggest that governments might place carbon taxes on owners, and not just miners, is they may view this as a way to get around jurisductional reach issues.

Who thinks that multiple countries will end up imposing a carbon tax on crytocurrency owners & miners? If this is done, what would happen to the price of BTC? Do you think bitcoin would make changes to adapt (like ending mining sooner than 2140)? Would Bitcoin be secure with fewer miners?

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-01-26/is-bitcoin-mining-worth-the-environmental-cost