看起来关于比特币挖矿消耗多少能源的公关之争毕竟还没有结束。
不久前，我宣布它已经赢了——实际上花了很多时间研究这个问题的人们的不懈抵制平息了批评和担忧。
事实和推理战胜了散布恐惧和使用触发词。
多么天真啊。
上周，能源部下属统计机构美国能源信息管理局（EIA）对比特币生态系统开了几枪。
其中之一是 EIA 宣布将对所有美国比特币矿商进行强制性调查。
另一个是发布了一份报告，其中对美国比特币挖矿消耗的能源进行了“官方”估计。
Noelle Acheson 是 CoinDesk 和 Genesis Trading 的前研究主管，也是 CoinDesk Markets Daily 播客的主持人。 本文摘自她的《加密货币现在是宏观》时事通讯，该通讯重点关注不断变化的加密货币和宏观景观之间的重叠。 这些观点是她的，她写的任何内容都不应被视为投资建议。
让我们仔细看看。
信息收集
从本月开始一直到 7 月底，EIA 将定期向所有美国比特币矿商进行调查，要求提供有关其运营的详细信息，重点关注其能源来源和消耗情况。
信息是好的，对比特币能源消耗的更详细的了解最终可以通过数据来消除气候活动人士和敌对监管机构的夸大说法。
这里的问题是比特币挖矿被单独挑出来。
没有人建议人工智能项目受到同样的审查，尽管其庞大的数据中心所需的能源开始引起关注。
更重要的是，信息收集工作并不是从中立立场开始的。
通常情况下，政府调查必须由管理和预算办公室 (OMB) 在评估必要性和详细程度后签署。
比特币挖矿调查的批准是通过紧急修订请求征求的，因为根据提交的文件，“如果遵循正常的审批程序，很可能会造成公共损害。”
有什么紧急情况？
“可能”的公共伤害在哪里？
来自官方要求：
“作为证据，比特币的价格在过去三个月里上涨了大约 50%，更高的价格刺激了更多的加密货币挖矿活动，这反过来又增加了电力消耗。”
啊哈。
进一步的线索在于宣布数据收集活动时发布的报告。
It specifically mentions growing concern about the energy-intensive nature of Bitcoin mining, citing two letters to the U.S. Secretary of Energy from elected officials asking for more detailed information to better identify the impact of Bitcoin mining on emissions. It will come as a surprise to no-one that both of those letters came from Senator Elizabeth Warren and her gang.
What the numbers mean
Also in the accompanying report is an estimate of the amount of electricity used by U.S.-based Bitcoin miners. The estimate the agency came up with is between 0.6% and 2.3% of all U.S. electricity consumption. This is a wide band, but nevertheless it is couched in terms to imply that, whatever the actual figure, it’s too much. Even the lower end of the band, the report clarifies, would equal the annual electricity usage for all of Utah, West Virginia or other similar states. The higher end, we’re told, is equivalent to the power consumption of roughly six million homes.
Never mind that comparing Bitcoin mining consumption to that of an entire state is like comparing apples to signposts – the former contributes to the maintenance of a global financial network, the latter covers a wide range of industrial, public service, distribution and lifestyle activities. The subliminal implication is that more families could have electricity if Bitcoin mining went elsewhere.
Read more: Dan Kuhn - The U.S. Government Seems to Be Closing in on Bitcoin Mining
Unsurprisingly, mainstream media got to work crafting headlines to get the outraged clicks. Here are just a few examples I spotted:
Bloomberg – US Bitcoin Miners Use as Much Electricity as Everyone in Utah
Yahoo Finance – Crypto Mining Consumes a Mind-Boggling 2% of U.S. Electricity
Ars Technica – Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin
Yet the estimate, even if accurate, makes no mention of the following facts:
More than half of U.S.-based Bitcoin mining is done with renewable energy sources.
A significant portion of these renewable sources would not be economically viable were it not for Bitcoin miners acting as initial anchor client, enhancing generator profitability and access to finance.
Bitcoin miners often use energy that would otherwise be wasted by locating consumption close to the source, adding income that operators can use to improve and extend transmission.
Bitcoin’s energy consumption helps mitigate contamination from fossil fuel production by using methane gas that would otherwise be flared into the atmosphere.
Bitcoin’s energy consumption helps stabilize grids by acting as an industrial swing consumer – this not only keeps the grid humming when demand is weak, it also provides additional income to grid operators that can finance further grid improvements.
Normally, I would assume that this is just another annoying attempt to curtail acceptance of Bitcoin in the U.S., that could be swatted away with reasoning and facts. Yet this has signs of being something more.
First, the timing, so soon after the U.S. listing of BTC spot ETFs (which certain regulators were vehemently against), is probably not a coincidence. A secondary objective could be to remind investors that the Administration does not like Bitcoin. This adds a layer of perceived investment risk.
Second, the move signals a different attack vector. Since enough reputable studies now show that Bitcoin mining has a net positive environmental impact, antagonistic regulators are trying a new approach: it’s not contamination any more, it’s potential grid strain. The “emergency” authorization request cites the cold weather in the U.S. and the likelihood that entire communities could be left stranded because Bitcoin miners are hogging electricity.
This, too, can be swatted away with detailed explanations of how Bitcoin mining’s flexible demand strengthens grid management and stable consumption even during peak demand and climate crises. Meanwhile, however, the implication is used to penalize an industry the regulators don’t like. Here we get to the bigger issue.
It’s not just the cost involved, which is considerable. More paperwork invariably generates additional expense. There’s also the likelihood that the resulting database could facilitate further clampdowns. Neither outcome is good, but they’re focused on one industry for now.
No, the bigger issue is regulatory prejudice, and the lasting damage that can have on investment in U.S.-based production and innovation.
The subliminal implication is that more families could have electricity if Bitcoin mining went elsewhere
Imagine a country in which regulators decide what energy can be used for. Once they have stamped out one industry, there is a non-zero chance they’ll pivot to another. This adds to the risk of investing in productive capacity, it adds to the financing costs, and it encourages more investment offshore.
Bitcoin itself will be fine, whatever the U.S. Administration can throw at it. The network will continue to validate transactions and process blocks, no matter how oppressive certain regimes can become. More supportive regimes will benefit from the business, energy grid support and access to a financial system that does not care about dollar hegemony.
Yet this heavy-handed approach will end up hurting more than Bitcoin mining businesses in the U.S. The country has a strong entrepreneurial spirit, a tradition of property protection and deep capital markets. These are worth preserving. It would be such a pity if illogical regulatory antagonism to certain industries ended up hurting the reputation and dynamism of a jurisdiction the world looks to for business inspiration.
以上就是文梦网小编要带给您的关于比特币：新的监管攻击媒介的相关内容。如果对像有帮助。迎常来本站哦
