But if the power in the area is coming from coal then every use of that power is equally coal based.
Hair dryers use more power than bitcoin mining, ban them first.
The attempt to demonize certain uses of power is just the attempt to demonize certain people in order to oppress them.
In contrast, one person blow-drying their hair does not create a feedback loop of more people blow-drying their hair.
I thought this was backwards, or maybe there's a balance between the two? I assumed that the price of energy acts as a soft floor for the price of bitcoin. Mining pauses when it's unprofitable, or the cost difference is eaten in speculation. The hash rate graphs appear to align with this.
So for any given bitcoin price, rational miners will hash until their cost to mine a bitcoin exceeds its price. If energy is cheap, miners will use more of it, if it's expensive, they will use less.
Criticizing uses of energy based on their cost and utility isn't persecution or oppression of cryptocurrency people.
It's not clear to me that hairdryers are worth it for society.
They do make long hair look fabulous, which in my opinion is much better value than crypto.
Bitcoin miners run at high energy costs 24/7 to make the operator more money.
For one, I've yet to see a hairdryer be a critical component of a large-scale swindle.
And how many million$ of cryptoswindle funds would the family of each victim pay, in theory, if they could have their loved one back? How would that overall balance sheet conclude?