Solution: Carbon emission tax.
Perhaps computing power in general should be capped so it can only use small amounts of power.
You playing a game 4h/day is nothing compared to 1000 gpus mining 24/7. One is pennies in tax and the other would (presumably) be way more significant.
Red Dead Redemption 2 sold 34 million, the game takes well over 100 hours to complete and runs GPUs to their limits.
I think even if just half or a quarter of the players completed it that's significant next to mining and needs to be looked at with the same level as criticism.
And even if it is worth it to them to run with the carbon tax (as it would be for a gamer), the money that's being taxed can be used to offset their emission. That's the point of a carbon tax; pollute if you want BUT you pay for what you generate as pollution so that we can offset it in some other way.
Around 5BN from the developing world will laugh at this proposal.
They will not be able to trade with you? Oh well they might trade among themselves and dont have to face competition from rich countries.
I call this win win.
Of course they can trade with the others who don't care about pollution. That doesn't mean the costs of a carbon tax don't outweigh the benefits of having economic ties with the countries that have that tax.
>That doesn't mean the costs of a carbon tax don't outweigh the benefits of having economic ties with the countries that have that tax.
The only reason the world is not at war is globalization and even that is coming to an end.
Data centers? Youtube? Facebook?
Should they and bitcoin be seen on the same level?