Furthermore, if we can't find a stable use case for the blockchain and there are no more greater fools investing--the bubble collapses and all the ASICs end up in landfills--does society suddenly stop innovating in energy production?
Can you point me to any good literature on this? I don't understand the point.
The point is that the free market and algorithm finds an efficient equilibrium between what the users value it at (which is a reflection of its utility to them), what it costs to secure the network in relation to the reward paid for it. In these costs are electricity costs, for which miners will find the most efficient means such that they are profitable. The energy prices are determined by the economic actors producing it. The will charge what the market will bear such that they are profitable and competitive. All this is a wonderfully efficient system except for the fact that the externality you are worried about (pollution from energy production) is not accounted for anywhere in the system. In fact, it is almost incentivised, since it is likely that I can produce dirty power cheaper than I can clean power (although this is changing). If you did account for this, dirty power would become more expensive, miner using it would disappear or choose clean energy.
Hence, the problem is not "It uses too much energy! So wasteful!!!!" The problem is "We don't account for externalities!!!! So bad!!!"
"Another issue relates to the negative externalities arising in proof-of-work blockchains. First, as shown above, when choosing individually optimal computing capacity, miners fail to internalise the negative externality their investment generates for other miners by increasing difficulty. This implies that equilibrium capacity acquisition in proof-of-work mining is excessive. Second, proof-of-work mining generates greenhouse-effect negative externalities, whose order of magnitude is significant. As of January 2018, the electricity consumed for Bitcoin mining was equal to the electricity consumption of over 3,400,000 US households, with an average consumption per transaction of around 300 KWh. Pigovian taxation could curb overinvestment in mining, but it might also be difficult to put in place, given the international decentralisation of mining."
source: https://www.tse-fr.eu/sites/default/files/TSE/documents/doc/...
The “let the market find equilibrium” philosophy is reckless when we’re talking about global environmental concerns IMO.
Crypto mining is part of the externalities accounting problem, and for that matter one of the chief motivating factors behind crypto currency adoption has the idea of being able to avoid things like carbon taxes and energy quotas...
The chief motivating factor is a fair economic system.
By your logic anything energy intensive industry should be stopped because of the pollution it causes. Say goodbye to the Steel industry, Aluminium industry, Chemical industry, Textile Industry, Copper industry. https://www.ecofys.com/files/files/ecofys-fraunhoferisi-2015...
I guess this comes down to the fact you think it is more pragmatic, sensible, likely and beneficial to have Bitcoin miners stop mining. I think it is more pragmatic, sensible, likely and beneficial to have a price on carbon.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the steel industry, aluminium industry, chemical industry, textile industry and copper industry have done more for humanity than Bitcoin. Use less electricity though...
YMMV, but I think it is more pragmatic, sensible, likely and beneficial to stop shitting on people's lawns than to evangelise wider adoption of a system for producing more shit, funnelling it more efficiently to lawns less likely to attract the attention of shit regulators, whilst insisting the real problem is that the lack of a global shit tax. (I'd have used a less fecal analogy like hazardous waste and clandestine disposal systems but that's a little too close to stuff I'm actually working on making more difficult in the day job!)
!=
"citations for the idea that the theoretical point of Bitcoin is reducing government control of money and a large practical part of the BTC economy is regulatory evasion?!"
It's not entirely clear how to put a price on carbon, though. And, bitcoin's censorship-resistance (which of course I laud as an amazing and important innovation) might make it harder to force everyone to account for externalities.
Is someone doing serious research, writing, and thinking on the relationship between crypto-blockchain tech and the economics of environmental externalities?
An obvious problem, sure, but no easy solution.