It is bad regardless what fuel you use. Bitcoin uses a proof-of-waste system which scales to any amount of resources available. If some day we had nearly limitless energy from fusion reactors and ran the economy on Bitcoin, there would be a race to strip mine the planet to build more reactors whose output would be wasted to capture the same fixed slice of the mining pie.

If this conclusion sounds absurd we should reconsider the premise that Bitcoin deserves any kind of place in our society.

> Armored bank vehicles are bad for the environment too.

A negligible part of the traffic on the road are bank vehicles, and they don't carry a large part of global wealth. Dollars can be efficiently transferred over the internet now, because the banking system, however slow and fossilised, actually has incentive to reduce waste, unlike Bitcoin.

Fossil fuel plant reactivated and expanded solely to run transaction validation for cryptocurrencies.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkby7z/a-fossil-fuel-power-p...

It's a convincing lie. The reality is:

* Bitcoin incentivises _cheap energy_. If burning coal is 10 times cheaper than renewables, shitcoiners will burn coal

* The renewables that may be built are not built for the greater good, for public usage. Only to mine more coin, to make more money, to make more solar panels, to mine more coins, etc. The carbon cost of these renewables is abysmal.

* The only positive point it _may_ bring would be making renewables cheaper, but considering the shitcoin vultures are trying to go waste electricity from any source, including attempting to screw Iceland over, the likelihood of this happening is close to zero.