Bitcoiners protest against misleading letter from the Democrats to the EPA
Bitcoiners protest against misleading letter from the Democrats to the EPA
- The Bitcoin industry has bought against a letter signed by almost two dozen members of the congress, in which the EPA is asked to precisely regulate crypto mining
- crypto supporters lead defects in the data of the critics and a misunderstanding of the future energy requirement of industry
The supporters of the Bitcoin industry replied this week to a letter that was sent to the Environmental Protection Agency by MP Jared Huffman (D-CA) and signed by a total of 23 democratic congress members.
The extensive refutation by the Bitcoin Mining Council, a group that represents Bitcon-Miner, is signed by almost 50 personalities from the industry, including Nic Carter from Castle Island Ventures-who contributed a large part of the essay-and Jack Dorsey from Block and Mike Novogratz by Galaxy Digital.
"I wanted to write an answer, there was a whole series of important representatives of interest that considered an answer to justified, based on how misleading the Huffman letter was and how critical he could be," said Carter to block works and noticed that the EPA could do more for crypto mining companies to acquire its own energy generating sources.
"If 23 congressions have signed this thing, it could be chaotic."
carter described a number of inaccuracies in the original Huffman letter. On the one hand, he noticed that Huffman emphasized the EPAS Greenidge application, to keep its so-called "coal-ash-ponds", big dirt, open Gräben to dispose of harmful coal -bean products that are not biodegradable.
But Greenidge is now a pure gas operation that builds Bitcoin. The company uses this pond to continue to reduce waste associated with its previous life as a coal -fired power plant. Therefore, it is not relevant for crypto mining to celebrate the step of the EPA against the coal ponds of Greenidge, said Carter.
Another sticking point was Huffman's claim that "a single Bitcoin transaction could supply the average US budget for a month". This calculation is based on taking the average transaction number and simply dividing it by the estimated energy consumption of the network.
The Bitcoin Mining The answer of the council described the energy cost analysis "per transaction" as "deeply incorrect method to argue via Bitcoin, since the forecast of future energy growth does not depend on the number of transactions, but on the value of the bitcoin emission (which is a function of the price). And offer growth), together with the fees that are ready for users, for users To pay transactions. “
The core of Carter's answer was to separate data centers (that is, crypto mining farms) from their energy sources. For Carter, crypto miners are only another variant of data centers, such as those operated by Microsoft and Amazon; Large department stores full of servers to support our modern internet infrastructure.
"It is not really the mandate of the EPA to say that what you do with this data center is environmentally harmful, because it is not the activity of the data center that causes damage, but the generation of electricity, and that is already regulated," said Carter.
he found that some vertically integrated crypto mining operations-those who control the data center and its energy source-are already sanctioned by the EPA and some state supervisory authorities. According to the council's answer to the EPA, only 2 % of the Hashrates of Bitcoin from vertically integrated crypto miners come.
"It is a myth to say that the EPA is not aware of these things. They are very aware of it and are supported in some cases," added Carter. However, he noted that the noise pollution caused by Bitcoin mining workers was unnecessary and that he would actively advise branch participants to settle down in residential areas.
Bitcoin runs on a global secondary market for Asics
With regard to Pow's alleged problem with electronic waste, Carter questioned whether environmentalists are interested in the truth or whether they simply use the concept as a stick to attack Bitcoin.
Experienced mining consultant and work -proof. After he had spent the last five years of supporting and building mining companies around the world, de la Torre expressed his unbelief that every industry participant would simply throw away his Asics after less than two years of use.
he explained that, according to his experience, as soon as a machine has a mistake - let's say that a board burns or part is faulty - miner almost always repair it instead of paying for a brand new rig. In fact, the entire crypto mining industry is heavily dependent on a lively secondary market for used asics.
de la Torre described a global market for ASICS that enabled less capitalized mining companies to acquire used rigs from more established crypto power plants. Richer crypto mining companies know that they can finally sell their first-class mining rigs when more efficient technologies are developed.
This creates a symbiotic relationship between small and large companies, from which both sides benefit: smaller ones can buy cheaper hardware from larger ones in order to compensate for the costs for state -of -the -art machines. Every mining company in the ecosystem uses this secondary market, emphasized de la Torre.
"At the moment there are miners everywhere who pay almost nothing for their electricity, sometimes even zero," said de la Torre to block works. “The miners who have their own hydropower plants in Venezuela or network -independent miners and those who use flared gas.
"It doesn't matter to you to buy a machine that is four years old because you have free electricity - so let your machines run until you die."
As soon as ASICS finally break - often after several repairs and numerous owners - ASICs are reused. A large part of the circuits and aluminum are sold as scrap and otherwise recycled. On average, de La Torre estimated the average service life of an ASIC, much longer than the 1.29 years often mentioned by environmentalists.
"That's why the economy of Bitcoin mining works so well," said de la Torre. "For example, you buy a machine for $ 10,000. You operate it for two years, then sell it for $ 6,000. You have lost only $ 4,000 with the machine while generating a lot of Bitcoin."
. .
The Post Bitcoiner's protest democrat's 'Irreleading' Letter Sent to Epa is not a financial advice.
Kommentare (0)