Will Climate Regulations affect Bitcoin in the long run?

[Sitasaba]

I was having this argument with some friends today and it got me thinking about the long term. As we all know, Bitcoin mining is an energy-intensive exercise involving heavy computing and even heavier cooling systems.

Environmentalists have raised alarm over the past few years regarding the high energy usage, equating the power used to countries' consumption. There were also complaints of noise pollution, water pollution and methane emission.

Although miners have taken measures to curb these effects, especially after the ban in various US states and other countries such as China (which were lifted), environmentalists still complain that the process' carbon footprint is too high compared to other transaction systems such as credit cards.

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

[stompix]

In the long run, the halving mining reward will take care of the electricity consumption, miners can't spend more than they make on electricity thus there is a simple cap in place, and assuming that Bitcoin doesn't double its price relentlessly including inflation every 4 years, the electricity spent on mining will surely decrease.

Oh, and before anyone says anything about efficiency, no, higher efficiency in terms of terrahash/watt doesn't bring consumption down, all it does is increase the hashrate per the same amount of electricity spent if efficiency would decrease consumption then we wouldn't have set records after records while ASICs have gotten 10 times more efficient.

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

Affect Bitcoin mining, not Bitcoin, or more like affecting the level of security of the network, Bitcoin could run with no problem with 1/100 or 1/1000 of the current hashrate.

[Sitasaba]

In the long run, the halving mining reward will take care of the electricity consumption, miners can't spend more than they make on electricity thus there is a simple cap in place, and assuming that Bitcoin doesn't double its price relentlessly including inflation every 4 years, the electricity spent on mining will surely decrease.

Oh, and before anyone says anything about efficiency, no, higher efficiency in terms of terrahash/watt doesn't bring consumption down, all it does is increase the hashrate per the same amount of electricity spent if efficiency would decrease consumption then we wouldn't have set records after records while ASICs have gotten 10 times more efficient.

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

Affect Bitcoin mining, not Bitcoin, or more like affecting the level of security of the network, Bitcoin could run with no problem with 1/100 or 1/1000 of the current hashrate.

Wow. Thanks for the insight.

[YOSHIE]

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

I don't think rules and laws should be enforced or look for solutions against Bitcoin miners, I once found a source about energy, the environment, for reasons:

However, the environmental impact of Bitcoin is still difficult to calculate. Until now, no one knows how many renewable energy sources there are. Apart from that, the location and scale of bitcoin mining (Bitcoin mining) also changes all the time.

Before rules and laws apply to Bitcoin miners, Bitcoin miners have anticipated climate and environmental impacts.
For example:

Most mining takes place in China, behind cheap hydroelectric power plants in Sechuan and Yunnan provinces in the wet season, then moving north in the dry season, often fueled by coal.

Mining has also taken root in North America, especially in areas with mild climates and cheap hydroelectric power.

For me the big rule that must be applied to the negative impacts of climate and the environment is not on Bitcoin miners.
Instead, the law applies to fossil fuels and glass buildings, before things get worse than now.

[UCBerkeleyStudent]

How do environmental regulations fit in with existing differences in state regulations?

[Fiatless]

Although miners have taken measures to curb these effects, especially after the ban in various US states and other countries such as China (which were lifted), environmentalists still complain that the process' carbon footprint is too high compared to other transaction systems such as credit cards.

Some of these environmentalists and their organizations usually overblow the impact of Bitcoin mining on the environment. It is popular to see data that compares mining power consumption to nations but some of them are biased. Some of these negative informations are sponsored by anti-Bitcoin forces.   

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

The global perception of the entire crypto community seems to be changing. More nations are embracing Bitcoin and the news about its environmental effects is losing its popularity. For the next four years, I don't think there will be more stringent regulations on Bitcoin mining in the US. The incoming president is not a fan of these climate change crusaders.

But I have also read articles that showed that many Bitcoin miners are moving away from fossil fuels and switching to renewable energy   

[bizeodal]

Bitcoin mining uses energy. Bitcoin does not. In this discussion, it is not correct to ask "will this affect Bitcoin?", because it is only relevant to Bitcoin mining. Bitcoin needs miners. Bitcoin does not need millions of miners hashing at 800 million trillion hashes per second. Bitcoin works equally well with 1000 miners at 4000 trillion hashes per second, using less energy than a single Tesla car

Some years ago, regulators ran a public relations campaign against Bitcoin, advocating several perceived flaws. Only one of these flaws gained any public recognition - Bitcoin mining energy use

Since then, anti-Bitcoin campaigns have focused on this single issue, as if they care. But the real goal is to shut down Bitcoin

Bitcoin mining fact: Bitcoin mines a fixed amount of BTC per day. Unlike mineral extraction, if more miners join the network, they don't make more Bitcoin. They reduce the amount of Bitcoin earned by every miner. The fixed amount automatically halves every 210,000 blocks

Bitcoin economics: if the dollar cost of mining Bitcoin is less than the dollars received for selling the mined Bitcoin, the miner makes a profit

Most of the cost is electricity, which is dependent on the per-kW-hour cost of electricity, the number of kW-hours per trillion hashes (efficiency of miner's hardware), and the number of hashes

The income is a fixed amount of BTC per day, shared among all the miners. A miner's dollar income depends on the dollar price of BTC and his share of the fixed daily amount of mined BTC

Why did energy use increase? Because the price of Bitcoin increased

If the world of governments and regulators wanted to reduce Bitcoin energy use, what could they do?

• reduce the dollar value of Bitcoin
• increase electricity prices for Bitcoin miners

BTC price manipulation is probably outside the scope of regulators, for several reasons, most of them obvious 

Electricity price surcharges would reduce Bitcoin mining in proportion to the size of the surcharge. If Bitcoin miners have recently converged to a $0.06 per kW-hour price for profitability, increase the price to $6 to reduce electricity consumption by 99%

On a regional basis, this already happens (although not so high as $6)

Where are these places with $0.06 electricity prices? Nearly all are in locations with hydroelectric generation, where the supply is much greater than consumption
The miners arrive, find some land, pay for electricity supply to connect the shipping container, warehouse, or shed. The word gets out - $0.06 electricity, great place for Bitcoin mining. More miners arrive. In upper New York State, and north of the border in Quebec, 6 months after the arrival of Bitcoin miners exploiting cheap, plentiful hydroelectricity, all the surplus electricity was allocated, causing shortages for the regular consumers and price increases. The hydroelectricity supplier in New York banned the miners. In Quebec, they banned new miners, and eventually chose to limit the amount miners can use, and added a price surcharge specifically for Bitcoin miners

Will there be a worldwide Electricity price surcharge for Bitcoin miners, to address these emissions/climate issues? No, there will not, because the regulators' goal is to kill Bitcoin, not to reduce the electricity consumption of Bitcoin mining

It's a fake concern. They're all liars

[Lucius]

It is hard for me to understand how it is so easy to convince people that Bitcoin mining is something that has any significant impact on the environment, considering that a few years ago we talked about about 0.2% of the total electricity consumed. In other words, at that time the data showed that around 50 000 TWh were lost on a global level, while BTC mining required around 200 TWh in one year, of which more than 50% came from renewable energy sources.

Anyone who points the finger at BTC for protecting the environment and excessive energy consumption is doing so because they are a complete fool, or because someone is paying them to talk nonsense.

[apogio]

Climate regulations shouldn't even have anything to do with Bitcoin.
They could target Bitcoin with their new regulations, but the reason wouldn't be the climate. They 'd use it as a justification.

Yes, we must protect the climate and the earth in general.
But, let's be honest, is it Bitcoin the reason why global temperature rises each year? I don't think so.
I am not totally against the "climate protests", in fact I believe we 've failed into preserving our home clean. But I think all this war against bitcoin, using the "climate" argument is non-sense.

[BlackHatCoiner]

They don't affect bitcoin in the slightest. They only affect mining businesses. If they threaten them to shut their operations down, then miners can migrate their operation to another country, or shut it down. In either case, the network remains intact.

In fact, if a big miner shuts down their operations due to regulations, the rest of the miners take a greater share of the pie, and therefore invest into more mining, which can readjust the difficulty as it was before.

[cryptosize]

Not in the slightest!

Here's why.

[avikz]

Do you think there will come a time when tougher measures will be implemented that will affect Bitcoin, or will they ease up as measures are being implemented to be environmentally friendly?

It might! But also please understand the other side of it. A lot of countries are actively considering to keep Bitcoin as a reserve currency in their coffers. Trump mentioned about it and Switzerland is also considering it.

No amount of climate regulation will create problem for Bitcoin mining is it happens in reality. It is possible that even country an start mining Bitcoin similar to what Bhutan is doing. So nothing to worry. Protestors will protest but countries will do what they think works for them.

[FinneysTrueVision]

By some estimates, generative AI already consumes more energy than Bitcoin mining. Also, the way in which energy is used for AI is a lot less environmentally friendly than Bitcoin. If governments want to regulate Bitcoin’s energy usage, they would also have to take a look at AI. Until now, there has not been a desire to ban AI. Doing so would mean losing ground to China is you are the US or EU.

Even if we did see restrictions on mining, I am sure that miners will just move to a friendlier country, making these regulations completely ineffective. We already saw that after China made it harder for Bitcoin miners, the hashrate quickly went back to its previous levels and has only continued to increase.

[apogio]

By some estimates, generative AI already consumes more energy than Bitcoin mining. Also, the way in which energy is used for AI is a lot less environmentally friendly than Bitcoin. If governments want to regulate Bitcoin’s energy usage, they would also have to take a look at AI. Until now, there has not been a desire to ban AI. Doing so would mean losing ground to China is you are the US or EU.

Plus, AI doesn't scare them because:

1. AI still hasn't messed with their broken financial system.
2. AI is developed by companies that they like.
3. AI is not freedom-oriented.
4. AI is their weapon, not people's.
5. AI doesn't tell the truth, but only what it's trained to tell.

[cryptosize]

By some estimates, generative AI already consumes more energy than Bitcoin mining. Also, the way in which energy is used for AI is a lot less environmentally friendly than Bitcoin. If governments want to regulate Bitcoin’s energy usage, they would also have to take a look at AI. Until now, there has not been a desire to ban AI. Doing so would mean losing ground to China is you are the US or EU.

Plus, AI doesn't scare them because:

1. AI still hasn't messed with their broken financial system.
2. AI is developed by companies that they like.
3. AI is not freedom-oriented.
4. AI is their weapon, not people's.
5. AI doesn't tell the truth, but only what it's trained to tell.

A decentralized, bias-free AI will scare them...

[apogio]

A decentralized, bias-free AI will scare them...

AI is almost never unbiased. But your point is clear and in the theoretical case where AI was unbiased and decentralised, then yeah, it would...

[zeuner]

As long as the regulations are applied in a proper, unbiased fashion like raising taxes or charges on electricity or emissions, I don't think there will be a negative long-term effect. It might even lead to improvements like more efficient miners being invented.

However, don't underestimate how much traction populist, less well-thought approaches can achieve, like people pushing for removal of PoW.

[dansus021]

Will Climate Regulations affect Bitcoin in the long run? Well filipone already made a post "Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument" https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5325350.0

In simple way bitcoin is getting popular people are gonna watch from all over the world some people like it some people are don't, those who don't like it always looking the negative side of crypto. Haters gonna hate you know.

Will Bitcoin mining be regulated in the future the answer is yes. But hey big mining companies are starting to use renewable energy for their fleet. and I believe toward the future the energy are going to be green