Princewill Pius’ Post

The Norwegian government has enacted a new law aimed at reining in the burgeoning industry of crypto mining. The law, disclosed in a report by local news outlet VG on Monday, signals Norway’s resolve to regulate and potentially shutter cryptocurrency mining operations within its borders. This development comes amidst growing concerns over the environmental impact of crypto mining and the need to align national policies with global climate objectives. Environmental Concerns Prompt Regulatory Action The newly passed law specifically targets data centers, which have been instrumental in facilitating cryptocurrency mining activities. Norwegian digitalization minister Karianne Tung and energy minister Terje Aasland emphasized that the legislation is a response to the significant greenhouse gas emissions associated with the sector. Aasland stated unequivocally: “This is a type of business we do not want in Norway.” The move underscores Norway’s commitment to reducing its carbon footprint and transitioning towards more sustainable energy practices. With its abundance of hydropower, Norway has been an attractive destination for Bitcoin miners seeking low-cost electricity. However, the environmental impact of such operations has raised concerns among policymakers, prompting the introduction of regulatory measures to address these issues. Minister Tung emphasised the government’s commitment to responsible digitalization: “The purpose is to regulate the industry in such a way that we can close the door on the projects we do not want.” Crypto Mining Hub Faces Uncertain Future Norway’s emergence as a prominent Bitcoin mining hub in the West has been fueled by its favorable energy landscape. Bitcoin mining analyst Jaran Mellerud highlighted the significance of Norway’s “stranded hydropower” in attracting some of the world’s leading mining operators, including Bitfury, Bitdeer, and Bitzero. However, the government’s stance against Bitcoin mining could spell uncertainty for the future of the industry in the country. The timing of this regulatory move, just days before Bitcoin’s highly anticipated halving event, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The halving event, which occurs approximately every four years and reduces the reward for Bitcoin miners by half, has historically had a profound impact on the cryptocurrency market. With Norway’s crackdown on mining operations, the event could potentially exacerbate challenges faced by miners operating in the region. Global Ripple Effects Norway’s decision to regulate cryptocurrency mining comes amidst a broader trend of governments worldwide scrutinizing the industry’s environmental and regulatory implications. Russia, for instance, has also been exploring regulations targeting Bitcoin mining, with a particular focus on its environmental impact. As governments increasingly prioritize sustainability and environmental stewardship, the days of unchecked

Hi there! Last week was eventful for the world of mining and cryptocurrencies. Let's take a look at the most important events. Every week, we'll post out a short overview—everything you need to stay up to date! 🛡️Russia Plans to Tighten Control Over Mining The Russian government is discussing new measures to strengthen control over cryptocurrency mining. Plans include licensing, taxation, and stricter oversight of mining companies. Why it matters: This could significantly change the operating conditions for Russian miners, increasing costs and administrative burdens. 🚀El Salvador Mined Nearly 474 BTC in Three Years Since legalizing Bitcoin, El Salvador has mined nearly 474 BTC using state resources. This has been made possible by President Nayib Bukele's initiative, who is actively promoting cryptocurrencies in the country. Why it matters: El Salvador's example shows that even small countries can successfully integrate mining into their economy, potentially inspiring other nations to take similar steps. 📈Stable Bitcoin Prices Benefit Public Miners Analytical firm Bernstein believes that stable Bitcoin prices create favorable conditions for public mining companies. In such conditions, they can consistently profit and attract investors. Why it matters: This could influence the strategies of miners focused on long-term asset holding and investor attraction, ensuring stable income and growth. When prices are stable, it's easier to attract funds. 🌳Genesis Digital Assets Launched Bitcoin Mining in Argentina Using Flare Gas Genesis Digital Assets began mining Bitcoin in Argentina using flare gas, which is typically burned off without use. Why it matters: Using alternative energy sources is becoming increasingly relevant for miners aiming for sustainable development and reducing environmental impact. This helps alleviate public pressure on miners regarding their environmental footprint. ‼Biden Banned Chinese Miner from Owning Facility Near Air Force Base U.S. President Joe Biden banned a Chinese mining company from owning a facility near an Air Force base. This decision was made for national security and strategic asset protection. Why it matters: Political risks and restrictions can significantly impact the operations of international mining companies, requiring them to adapt and enhance security. 🍏Green Footprint: Comparing Bitcoin Mining and the Global Banking System's Environmental Impact A new study shows that Bitcoin mining may be less harmful to the environment compared to the traditional banking system. The study considers various factors, including energy consumption and carbon footprint. Why it matters: Understanding the environmental aspects of mining helps miners choose more sustainable methods of operation and improve public perception of the industry. See you next week, Headframe Pool, the most profitable BTC mining pool for miners

BREAKING: Norway passes anti-datacenter legislation, becoming the first country in Europe to legalize discrimination based on use-of-power "The purpose is to regulate the industry in such a way that we can close the door on the projects we do not want" https://lnkd.in/gteFzF56 Bitcoin mining like eVs is a zero-emission fully electrified industry. Like eVs it has secondary emissions from the underlying electricity source. In Norway, that is almost 100% renewable energy. So how can Bitcoin mining in Norway be linked to high emissions? Further, Bitcoin mining has an ultra-high 55% sustainable energy usage, higher than any other global industry or major industrialized nation. That's the industry Norway's energy minister Terje Aasland is attacking ! 3. "We" don't want Bitcoin mining? Did Aasland conduct a survey to establish this? Or is he assuming that his will = the will of the people? (What autocrats do) 4. Is Aasland aware that Bitcoin mining has had 6 peer reviewed publications emphasising the inaccuracy of prior literature on environmental impact, and endorsing Bitcoin mining's positive environmental externalities. Aasland has just attacked that user of power. He has just attacked probably the only user of power his country has that has the ability to stabilize grids and normalize energy prices. Good luck Norway.

We desperately need more education and research about the societal potential of #Bitcoin. People are too much focused on the price, getting lured into tinking of speculators and illegal activities only, or too much focused on the (absolute) amount of energy used by PoW, not seeing all the potential of this uniquely flexible demand for energy. Often, it is both together. :-/ How about I start an #NGO to work on these issues? How about "Greenpeace for Bitcoin" or something...? Does #Bitcoin need one?

I look forward to the day I don't have to do this debunking of biased articles on Bitcoin's environmental impact. The latest is by Mary K. Pratt. TechTarget https://lnkd.in/g3T9p5Rj Mary, your piece promises to explain the environmental impact of Bitcoin mining. What you offer is is a one-sided account that appears unaware of either 1. the increasing body of evidence the positive environmental externalities of Bitcoin mining 2. the non-reliability of the methodologies used by the most cited author in your article Here are the 4 main flaws 1. Conflating of "energy use" with "environmental impact" You state "mining for bitcoin ... is antithetical to climate progress. This is due to the technologies' massive energy needs..." OK, are you aware that "When Bitcoin miners provide...demand response, their emissions impact is largely mitigated." (Bruno & Yates. source: https://lnkd.in/gi-qsTmq). Did you know that Bitcoin mining often uses stranded energy that other users cannot access? (Ibanez & Frier. Source: https://lnkd.in/gvQdpcvd). Did you know Bitcoin mining has the unique ability to use vented methane as a power source, and that the Whitehouse said this "can yield positive results for the climate" (source: https://lnkd.in/gwbRzjff). Are you aware that Bitcoin mining is 28x more energy efficient than the banking sector, which has the potential to partially obviate? (source: Khazaka https://lnkd.in/gPqXXyfV) Your reasoning Bitcoin "uses a lot of energy" ipso facto is environmentally damaging is at best missing supporting logic, at worst, fundamentally flawed. 2. Your main source of evidence for Bitcoin's negative externalities is de Vries. You do know that his methodologies have been debunked in peer reviewed journals? I enclose Sai and Vranken comprehensive debunking of his work (source: https://lnkd.in/gZ2VDwkm) 3. Error by omission Imagine you were an auditor assessing the health of a business, but you only looked at the expense column before concluding "this business is in bad shape". You would be fired. Similarly, claiming to investigate environmental impact of a technology but only looking at the expense column (the negative externalities) is bias from inception. Please, do better: look both sides of the ledger Here is a list of 5 recent studies on the ESG benefits of Bitcoin mining https://lnkd.in/gy2T9NEV 4. Using old data-sets 62% of the electricity used for bitcoin mining in 2022 came from fossil fuels. So? In 2024, only 52.6% is from sustainable sources, more than any major industry. The "experts" you consulted are energy generalists. If you'd like to talk to real experts for your next piece, I'll happily put you in touch. You're an award winning journalist. Please live up to this reputation.

Miner Greenidge Generation won the court for the right to mine bitcoin in New York State -- Greenidge has announced the rejection of the claim by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection. -- As part of the trial, the agency banned the company from mining cryptocurrency in the region. -- The conflict began around restrictions on air pollution and the refusal to issue a Title V Air Permit document. Bitcoin miner Greenidge Generation has secured the dismissal of a lawsuit by the New York State Department of Environmental Protection (DEC). The case concerned the refusal of the department to issue the company a Title V Air Permit, which did not allow the company to engage in cryptocurrency mining. According to court documents, the confrontation between Greenidge and DEC began from the moment when the firm tried to issue the mentioned documents. They relate to air pollution permits in New York State. The department refused to issue a Title V Air Permit to the company. As an argument, DEC pointed to a violation of the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (CLCPA). Representatives of the company challenged the agency's decision in response. Although Greenidge's initial application was rejected, further legal proceedings led her to victory. The bitcoin miner considers the aforementioned ruling to be a triumph of justice over "political interference" in the current legislation. "The climate Law is a good and well—intentioned law, but it did not give DEC's political appointees and bureaucrats the authority to rewrite it. [...] They tried their best, in collusion with their allies in the human rights community, for whom the truth was too far a bridge, but no amount of PR could change this fact," the company commented on the court decision. In addition, Greenidge said that the ruling highlights the importance of data centers. In their opinion, they play an important role in the activities of the AI sector, the crypto industry and cloud computing. Earlier, analysts of the research organization Exponential Science (ES) published a report on the prohibition of mining in various countries. In their opinion, the introduction of thoughtless restrictions on the mining of cryptocurrencies can do more harm than good. Recall that we wrote that the residents of Texas filed a class action lawsuit against the bitcoin miner Marathon Digital. Crypto Updates | Az

The latest IMF report on Bitcoin mining by Shafik Hebous and Nate Vernon-Lin contains several basic errors and as such, the report comes under the category of misinformation. https://lnkd.in/d5wvTjfD Mistakes include 1. IMF's own source data show that AI's share of energy consumption and CO2 emissions is increasing, which cryptocurrency's share is decreasing. However, they go on to propose a tax on crypto but not AI. (see chart below) 2. Citing CCAF's statistics on Bitcoin emissions, even though CCAF's own website acknowledges that their data has not been updated since Jan 2022 and is currently significantly overstating emissions. 3. Building their conclusion on the work of authors such as Mora et al and Alex de Vries, who's work has been discredited in peer reviewed research multiple times. (Cambridge Judge Business School, Sai and Vranken) 4. Ignoring the scientific consensus (9 of the last 10 papers published), World Economic Forum reporting (3 case studies highlighting positive environmental externalities), 5 independent whitepapers, and first hand experience of grid operators such as Brad Jones (who ran both ERCOT and NYISO) who confirm Bitcoin mining has a net decarbonizing impact on grids, helps the renewable transition and makes their operations more profitable. 5. Ignoring independent analysis from the Digital Assets Research Institute which showed Bitcoin is now the world's most sustainable energy driven industry, with 56.5% sustainable energy, rising 3.5% per annum. By contrast the banking and financial services sector, of which the IMF is part, uses ~38% sustainable energy, rising 0.5% per annum. 6. Failure to mention that Bitcoin projects such as Gridless in Africa have already supported multiple strategic objectives, which IMF claim on their website are strategic goals of theirs, such as supporting renewable microgrid development, energy independence and energy abundance in developing nations. (Notably: Bitcoin projects have achieved this without imposing a debt-burden on those benefitted). 7. Disclosure statement lacking: The IMF is developing its own CBDC. CBDCs represent a directly competing vision of the future of digital currency to Bitcoin. While this does not mean that the errors by the authors were made knowingly, it is a conflict of interest, and as such should be declared in your report. Due to these fundamental flaws, this report and its conclusions should be disregarded by policymakers and regulators until these errors are resolved. To the authors Shafik Hebous and Nate Vernon-Lin, I would encourage you in future to refer first to the newly formed Bitcoin Research Institute, who was set up to help eliminate basic errors in Bitcoin commentaries and improve the robustness of research done into Bitcoin.