> it seems that environmental groups in Iceland are fighting the expansion of bitcoin because it is directly driving extra demand for electricity, not simply using the existing production
As someone who lives and works here I can assure you there is absolutely no environmental group fighting the expasion of btc mining here in Iceland, we are however viciously fighting the increasingly destruction tourism influx that has been happening since 2012. It does far more damage that the dams that were built here well before btc mining even existed.
>while currently not paying much of anything to the local government[2] and hiring next to no people, like most tech industries.
This is also untrue, construction and remote hands as well as grid infrastructures resulted from them, the companies that run the facilities also incorporate here and pay corp and employee tax here.
>And it is not my place to have productive ideas for how a country could use its natural resources. My claim was that bitcoin mining should be stopped as soon as possible, as it is driving an overall increase in power needs for the entire world, at a time we should be looking for every possible means to reduce our energy consumption.
If you followed your own citations you'd see one of them linked to https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption which shows est electric consumption going back as far as 2018. Notice the graph has not really changed since 2018 (since the last halving).
>You came and brought up the extremely singular case of Iceland, as if it disproved anything. In the end Iceland is irrelevant in the discussion of Bitcoin's impact on the world.
Again your OWN source has Iceland listed as one of the top mining locations in the world of course it's relevant. I've even read estimates that 40% of bitcoin mining is coming from renewable sources, most during off peak season where that electricity would be wasted otherwise.
You want to solve the energy efficiency problems of the world?
Good, begin by linking the disparate energy grids amongst the world to eliminate peak usage and off peak waste, you'll save far more electricity just by that way.
Not by knee-jerk "I see no value in this so it must have no value" vague emotional appeals on the internet. All I see is you vaguely groping for why it should be treated differently than any other form of industry or innovation while insisting all the rest are somehow necessary and this not. You're not even consistent in your reasons from reply to reply.