New York State Assembly passes ban on new BTC mines that don't use green power

[Oshosondy]

This is another hash proposal about bitcoin mining, though not in US as a whole but could be a move individual State can begin to ban bitcoin mining that are not using green energy, green energy are the electricity production that are not releasing carbon to the environment.

The bill was proposed by the New York State Assembly that was passed on 26th April, the bill was proposed to place a ban on bitcoin mining operation that do not use green energy to power their operation.

From the state assembly, the bill would be passed to Senate and if voted in support in Senate, it would be passed to the Governor Hochul for signing.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-york-state-assembly-passes-ban-on-new-btc-mines-that-don-t-use-green-power

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

[1715400268]

1715400268

[1715400268]

1715400268

[bitmover]

https://cointelegraph.com/news/new-york-state-assembly-passes-ban-on-new-btc-mines-that-don-t-use-green-power

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

Excelent question.

Recently there was a discussion  in EU about bitcoin migration to Pos."  If ethereum is migrating,  why can't bitcoin? "

https://netzpolitik.org/2022/climate-measures-behind-closed-doors-eu-officials-talk-about-banning-bitcoin/

Behind closed doors, officials exchange details about a possible course of action, as transcripts of their conversations show.

One document states a clear rationale for regulating Bitcoin:

If Ethereum is able to shift, we could legitimately request the same from BTC. We need to “protect” other crypto coins that are sustainable. Don’t see need to “protect” the bitcoin community.

So we can now clearly see that this ESG, sustainable stuff is about. Control, political correctness and centralization.

[Taskford]

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

Maybe the recent calling of those scientist what contribute about this proposed law and to minimize the carbon emission it produce they start with this since this already add up to the carbon produced on their country. Maybe in next following months or year we can see them past a law towards minimizing the carbon emission on their country and they just start with small industry then slowly implement it on bigger ones.

[Anonylz]

Couldn't agree more @bitmover, it is strange how the government have turned a blind eye to those companies that are not using green energy for their operations,  why aren't they place on ban or impose sanctions for not adhere to environmental law!
Clearly this is just a one sided law to put pressure on btc.
Government always expressing negativity towards btc anyway they can.

[NeuroticFish]

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

Well, this is imho a great point and, if US legislation works in the same way as my county's, this can be attacked for discrimination and get "nulled".
Hence I see it as a pointless and pure political move.

[so98nn]

Great. Now that raises the question about those mines which are already out there in US whose mining since decade or something? Are they going to ban the operation by searching them one by one.

What if someone is solo mining in their houses with one or two machines? Are they going to search every house and keep banning them as if they are producing the dope. Lolz.

Funny. I hope they have thought about everything or it would be chaos to sort later.

[evilgreed]

               Well, that's just how it is. When anything blocks the personal interests of people or organisations that have power and influence (mostly wealthy people or group of people that have great influence and control over banks and governments). Heck, some great or innovative ideas that can solve critical problems of our world today are even ignored or suppressed because of these people's greed and personal interests. Disgusting.

[d5000]

I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I think this law is actually a good thing, and it's similar to what I'm proposing in this thread. The faster the transition to renewables goes, the better, and once it's near 100%* anti-bitcoiners will lose their main argument** against Bitcoin.

Even if you don't agree with it, a PoW ban (or better: a ban for companies to deal with PoW cryptos) like it was discussed in the EU is much, much worse.

Remember: Bitcoin is constructed in a way that such kind of regulations for miners don't affect its functioning at all. The likely result if such policies were adopted around the world is that the hashrate/difficulty increase would be simply a bit slower (because of tighter profit margins for mining), or there could even be stagnation/slight diff decrease in bear markets. There's an absolute minimal chance that an 51% attacker could get a minuscule bit more chances (e.g. if some authoritarian regime lik North Korea tried to do it) but current hashrate is so high that this is close to impossible.

*sources for current proportion of "renewable" mining at present vary in their estimations, I read between <40% and ~70%; the 58% estimation for Q4 2021 by the Bitcoin Mining Council seems a reasonable value but I wouldn't rule out the 40% due to likely greenwashing by the BMC by buying CO2 certificates. There's some way to go still, imo.

**Yeah, there's also the "criminals laundering money" FUD, but this is much less convincing as Bitcoin and cryptos in general (even Monero) are only useful in the early phases of money laundering; it doesn't seem to give any advantage for the goal to insert the money in the legal banking system.

[ChiBitCTy]

Just another example of Nee York being on a different planet when it comes to all things finance despite the fact that they are “Wall Street”. Really not much of a surprise here. I used to be an annuity product expert wholesaler for a large finance company and out of the maybe 30-40 annuities we offered they only allowed about 3 of them and they were all terrible. NY makes no sense to me.

[NeuroticFish]

I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I think this law is actually a good thing, and it's similar to what I'm proposing in this thread. The faster the transition to renewables goes, the better, and once it's near 100%* anti-bitcoiners will lose their main argument** against Bitcoin.

While I would like to see mining businesses not only go for regenerable electricity, but go for producing their own green electricity (see the reasons here, most important being that they won't care on long term how low will the block rewards go), I don't find this law good because it can:
* force miners move (even out of USA) instead of complying
* force miners shut down, even for a while (move out), leading to sudden drops (even if small) in the hash rate, hence to congestion on mempool

[d5000]

* force miners move (even out of USA) instead of complying

This could be the case if the move out of New York, including the costs to move itself, is cheaper than a transition to a renewable energy tariff. There are such electricity providers in the New York State (see a list here below), but I don't know how high their rates are, and many large scale miners depend currently on custom agreements with electricity producers to lower their costs. A move outside the US for local miners however should be expensive.

* force miners shut down, even for a while (move out), leading to sudden drops (even if small) in the hash rate, hence to congestion on mempool

I seriously doubt there's so much mining in New York that a miner exodus would cause a hashrate drop. According to the source above, it seems to be one of the more expensive states when it comes to electricity costs. There seems to be a mining hotspot in the area near the Canadian border due to cheap hydro electricity, but these miners would be mostly compliant already.

[NeuroticFish]

This could be the case if the move out of New York, including the costs to move itself, is cheaper than a transition to a renewable energy tariff. There are such electricity providers in the New York State (see a list here below), but I don't know how high their rates are, and many large scale miners depend currently on custom agreements with electricity producers to lower their costs. A move outside the US for local miners however should be expensive.

I don't know either, I'd expect it to be either significantly more expensive, either have availability issues, since wind and sun are not 100% reliable, but I don't know how would that be implemented.
Moving out might be expensive, but, depending where they move, it may or may not pay off. It's clearly a risk, especially now, with so many problems with the energy (and it prices) over the world.

I seriously doubt there's so much mining in New York that a miner exodus would cause a hashrate drop. According to the source above, it seems to be one of the more expensive states when it comes to electricity costs. There seems to be a mining hotspot in the area near the Canadian border due to cheap hydro electricity, but these miners would be mostly compliant already.

You do have a point here, I may have been scared for nothing and maybe indeed the hash rate of NY state is not significant.

[stompix]

Hihi, this is going to be funny
https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/bills/2021/a7389/amendment/c
Some of the miners won't be affected, the ones in the north that have managed to get contracts for hydropower near the border or from Canadian imports might get a breather. Others are in deep trouble.

Stronghold is done for, they have just invested million to raise the production to 500 MW
Crypto Throws the Coal Industry a Lifeline
Atlas has a gas plant that is already in trouble at Finger Lakes.

Both companies are the ones signing that BMC "fact sheet"  about being 60% green, just lol.

Anyhow, it's New York, this won't be a huge problem, you can move to Texas still has 80Thw of excess power near matching what Kazakhstan produces overall.
But if Texas goes "green", it's going to stop being funny at all.

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

Well, this is imho a great point and, if US legislation works in the same way as my county's, this can be attacked for discrimination and get "nulled".

Won't work in court.
Ignoring the fact that the state has the power to suppress any activity in the state by law, the thing will start with the fact that the mining operations do not provide a direct service or product to the people of New York, and good luck convincing a judge how an individual miner is essential to validate some tx other can just as well.

[hatshepsut93]

Remember: Bitcoin is constructed in a way that such kind of regulations for miners don't affect its functioning at all.

When it's just one region, it's no big deal, if it's a global trend, that's a problem. If Bitcoin's hashrate shrinks and gets concentrated in just a few countries, that's not good, because the risk of a large-scale attack on the network will become higher.

Also, function is not everything. If Bitcoin gets restricted or banned by influential countries, it will become far less attractive as a store of value.

[virtualdn]

Suddenly everyone loves green color and everyone wants to save the planet. Give me a break, this is just an agenda using puppets like Greta and people are paying the costs for it: not the governments, not the rich guys.

They didn't cared at all about it, until now, when they were all suddenly enlightened.

[Lucius]

I do not know why also other industries are not banned not to use electricity that produces carbon in their operation.

Because Bitcoin is a problem that bothers many, and it doesn't have a central figure to defend it in situations like this - so it's a very easy target to attack. If they can already choose who to attack, they would rather choose weaker targets than some who would retaliate.

I know I'm probably in a minority here, but I think this law is actually a good thing, and it's similar to what I'm proposing in this thread. The faster the transition to renewables goes, the better, and once it's near 100%* anti-bitcoiners will lose their main argument** against Bitcoin.

It is one thing to imagine that mining can be powered by 100% green energy, and quite another to say that it is completely unrealistic that this can ever be achieved globally. Therefore, it is completely irrelevant to me whether this percentage will be 65% or 95%, there will always be those who will dispute such data because even at this time the energy consumption and environmental impact of Bitcoin mining is so small that we would never even talk about it in case Bitcoin is a centralized project.

[OgNasty]

What is with New York? They want to control how much soda you can buy and what energy type you’re allowed to use for what… Can you imagine if that government was controlling the entire country? I’m betting they’d love to get people on CBDCs that can be programmed so they can force you to spend money the way they want you to. It’s scary when you consider how they’re going to use universal income to get everyone to basically willingly walk into slavery via regular bribes under the guise of income provided to help everyone live happier lives…

[franky1]

most asic farsm want to set up in renewable area's anyway. especially hydro..

this is the point where potential asic farms approach power companies and ask them when they forecast that they will have renewable power generation in different regions/states, so that asic farms plan where to locate themselves. mainly highlighting how much revenue a power station may lose by not upgrading their section of the grid

[stompix]

What is with New York?

It's called trying to find somebody to blame and a way out of their own mess.

They were pretty trigger happy when signing all those acts on reducing those pesky CO2 emissions and just as happy on shutting down a nuclear plant only to find out that they can't really replace that energy without powering up 3 gas plants instead and their plans about CO2 emissions are down the drain.
So now the hunts start to shut down everyone that burns gas or coal since somebody was a moron 10 years ago and didn't realize the world can't run on unicorn farts.

When it's just one region, it's no big deal, if it's a global trend, that's a problem.

It depends on the region, it's one thing to have Vermont doing this and a different beast for Texas or Georgia.
But I don't see republican states following this or at least I hope they don't.

[hatshepsut93]

It depends on the region, it's one thing to have Vermont doing this and a different beast for Texas or Georgia.
But I don't see republican states following this or at least I hope they don't.

Bitcoin remained unscratched after China kicked all miners, and at the moment China had a truly large share of hashrate, probably larger than the entire US has right now. It's just that with every ban on mining there's less and less places for miners to relocate to. And now the world is going through an energy crisis, which could make finding spare electricity even harder.