Rarely has the meme been used as appropriately as these days, when left-wing and green EU politicians, out of complete incomprehension, are striving for a regulation of the proof-of-work mechanism, which results in a de facto ban on bitcoin and numerous other cryptocurrencies would have.
The bad thing about it is that after the vote in the EU’s ECON committee (which the left-green group luckily lost), some politicians spoke up publicly and made it more than clear through their statements that they wanted to regulate something that they basically do not understand at all.
A ban was never the goal and “was never in the proposal,” said MP Rasmus Andresen, for example. Rather, it is about setting “ecologically measurable criteria” so that those cryptocurrencies that “optimize their energy consumption” can establish themselves. Unfortunately, these statements and the approach are so full of naivety and incomprehension that one does not even know where exactly to begin to refute them.
Leaving aside the competitive disadvantage that such regulation would have meant for the EU compared to Asia and America (above all the USA), the proposed legislation was anything but progressive and goal-oriented. To believe that crypto projects can be persuaded to reduce their own energy consumption through appropriate requirements may be true for centrally managed altcoins, but at the same time shows the enormous gaps in understanding of the governance of the Bitcoin network.
read too
Bitcoin and Proof of Work: Not a bug, but a feature
After all, there is no “Bitcoin company” or “chief programmer” who could simply reduce energy consumption to the liking of the EU. Bitcoin is organized decentrally and designed for maximum security and resistance to censorship, the high energy consumption is a key element and – as the saying goes – not a “bug” but a “feature”.
Apart from that, the energy consumption is not the problem at all, but rather the CO₂ emissions, which in turn are not caused by the miners, but by the electricity producers. A meaningful regulation of “dirty” electricity and its areas of application would probably be much more effective, since it would promote mining with renewable energies. This could result in further positive effects that would actually have a positive impact on combating climate change.
Such an advance can be observed in the US state of New York. A two-year moratorium is now to be imposed there on mining farms that use electricity generated by using carbon-based fuel. As opposed to a pointless law that does more harm (think EU-based bitcoin companies and their employees, for example) than actually helping climate change. Accordingly, there is no lack of guidelines and specifications for Bitcoin miners, but rather for electricity producers and their use of raw materials, etc.
Regulation with a sense of proportion and common sense, on the other hand, is something that the market really needs and that will have a positive long-term impact on Bitcoin itself, the European (digital) economy and ultimately also the climate.
The promotion of climate-neutral energy sources for power generation can be strongly promoted by a power-hungry and financially strong customer such as the Bitcoin network.
Bitcoin does not have to be “fixed” or improved in this regard. Bitcoin is good the way it is. People’s mindsets and political frameworks need to be fixed to give the network the space it needs to work its magic.
We don’t fix Bitcoin, Bitcoin fixes us and our world.
Go to the Blocktrainer website This way.
You want to buy Bitcoin (BTC)?
We show you the best providers where you can buy and sell Bitcoin in just a few minutes.
To the guide