> That was not my point i made. We don't need BTC to change methan to co2.

Yeah, we just need it to earn money from burning methane that's a side product of operating an oil well. If owner of the well doesn't care about money he can just burn it directly as a flare.

> 'Not just'. In Texas summer weather there is probably AC running.

Since electronics happily operates at 80C various cooling options should be available for dedicated mining installation. But that's irrelevant. Cooling is just part of bitcoin minining that decreases it's profitability slightly by increasing capital and operational costs. No matter what technology it uses.

> Not profitable. Beneficial. Feel free to see ith through a pure economy standpoint but we are not in a 100% free market. There are plenty of examples how our markets are controlled to be more than just profitable. Its absolutely feasible to do this through politics. Easiest thing would be a proper co2 tax.

Tax that we still don't have even though we should have it for the last 50 years? Beneficial is not enough. Rich make the laws. If something is not profitable for the rich it simply doesn't happen.

> Lets talk about this after we fixed climate change. After we increased grid 'movecapacity' and after we increased storage.

We won't fix the climate change if we don't overbuild renewables. Climate change won't wait till we figure out storage. We have to solve it with current technologies.

> It is clear what it should be. Its clear what it should not be. It should not be bitcoin. For bitcoin to be okay, we will have to transform a lot. We can't afford bitcoin right now at all.

We are living in the real world that's not concerned with what should or shouldn't be. Only what can be and what cannot not be.

Bitcoin is the first thing that can be the solution for distributed energy sinks that transfer wealth from Wall Street into renewable energy production without an ounce of political action required.

> You see, its easy: IPCC tells us what the issue is. Politics only need to enforce what economy is allowed to ignore: To pay the right price.

And yet, nobody who makes the decisions cares. That's a huge 'only' that needs to be enforced globally in a world where countries compete with each other and taxing your own economy cripples it when compared to others. I am not at all surprised that in 50 years we achieved nearly zero coordinated global action in that area.

> You and i and everyone else who can fathom this, has to push for this. Those countries need to push for this (and they start to do).

It won't matter because neither you nor I are billionaires so our voices don't count at all no matter how numerous. End even if we were billionaires it still would be a hard sell for our billionaire colleagues. The rich are told directly for few decades that if they don't reduce the wealth gap they'll eventually get literally eaten by the poor and they still don't care. The only thing they care is how much money they are earning right now. The only way to achieve energy transformation is to make it profitable for them and bitcoin is a way of doing that.

> Energy prices will increase the cost of living for people who can't play the same game as bitcoin on a global gambling market does. Do you really think this is okay?

Yes. It's perfectly ok that a person could not afford to buy even a fraction of the electricity they need to live. You know why? Because the electricity people need to live should not be something that they should buy at market rates.

Same way they don't have to buy all the roads they drive on or they don't have to pay for the clean air to breathe. Those things have their own markets and economies but citizens shouldn't be involved directly in those markets to be able to live.

It's fine if energy costs 100$ per kWh if every household gets 1mln$/year in non-transferable energy credit from the country they live in.

> Why is the only solution for you to accept bitcoin as something which is here and can't be regularted?

It's not the only solution, it's just a solution that will actually happen. Because even though we regulate many things, we are almost unable to regulate globally. And any country that doesn't join the ban on bitcoins that you promote will get massive benefits of increased investments into bitcoin mining and clean energy production financed by global bitcoin investors.

> Why is it, that everything you counter, only assumes that we have to live with shitcoin?

Because I wanted to show you consistent and clear vision of the future you are unable to imagine yourself because you made you mind on morality of bitcoin and energy waste and it closed off your mind to possible scenarios.

> Sry dribbling effect.

Still no idea what you might have in mind? Maybe you can share some link to some description or definition?

> I'm fully aware for a long time, that GPUs and CPU advances have also beeing payed by consumers. But this is a beneficial ecosystem: We get creativity, entertainmen or lets say a cheap idle function for a lot of people. And this is a good thing. Its still discussable to which extend this is good, but the benefit of this exists while it doesn't for bitcoin.

You don't recognize that gaming is a frivolous pursuit? And that those additional 400W my computer uses sometimes for 16 hours per day should be better used for other more utilitarian purposes? And that GPU I have should be used solely for scientific computing?

Regardless of whether we want it or not we have capitalism and our progress comes from excess not from optimal use of our resources. Scientists can afford hardware needed to push us forward only because millions of us use same hardware inefficiently for entertainment while wasting a lot of energy and materials.

Crypto is also a frivolous pursuit that will force us to expand which will make everything cheaper for all purposes (also noble ones) due to economies of scale.

> The ASIC calculating a hash is only good for bitcoin

Yes. But fab that makes BTC ASICs can pivot to making something else after demand for ASICs drops due to market saturation.

> Are you ignoring all the negative effects bitcoin already has? A uncontrolled btc system already hurts people. There is a reason why Iran blocked/banned bitcoin mining for a while. There is a reason besides political ones why China doesn't allow it anymore.

Yes, we are in a pinch at the moment. But rising energy prices and hitting the limits of our capacity is exactly what we need to expand it. And cheapest way to expand it is by going into renewables.

Pain is unfortunate but without moderate pain there can be no change. Shortage of chips is painful, but without that pain we wouldn't have so many new fabs being built right now.

> We don't need Bitcoin.

Perhaps. But Bitcoin is not going away. Not with its distributed nature, both good and bad effects and billions of dollars invested in it. Bitcoin is here to stay same way bittorrent is or drugs are.

> We need to advocate against bitcoin and for real solutions which will help us to do the right thing in a 'free' market for the whole planet.

Ask yourself. Did trouble with orchestrated political action on climate change start with bitcoin?

If not why do you think advocating against bitcoin, even if you managed to achieve global total ban, will bring you any further in real climate change action than we were in year 2000?

By all means advocate for the correct political decisions. By my estimate we'll achieve global consensus about year 2080. Then, when you'll be Great Tzar of Earth you'll be able just swap out all the bitcoin miners collocated near power plants with carbon capture carbon factories that will use abundant electricity to power clever fuel cells to separate CO2 from air and turn it into carbon with the use of gallium that you'll be able to promptly toss back into the mine shafts.