It should be noted that Bitcoin mining is often enough a cause for criticism. The last time such a major incident took place late last month. Back then, Greenpeace representatives shared a sculpture of BTC, which consumes too much electricity and harms the environment. However, the campaign failed, but Bitcoin enthusiasts liked the sculpture a lot. Read more about the story in a separate piece.

Disadvantages of Bitcoin mining

In short, experts have concluded that there are allegedly more problems with Bitcoin than meets the eye. These include persistent air and water pollution, as well as excessive noise. At the same time, analysts acknowledge that you can’t put all miners in the same category. Here’s the relevant rejoinder, in which experts share their views on what’s going on.

Not all Bitcoin miners are the same. Some rely on “resurrecting” idle fossil fuel power plants, while others find cheap, polluting fuel sources. For example, in Pennsylvania they use coal, in Montana they use gas from oil wells.

The use of renewable sources of electricity has indeed become a trend among owners of computing equipment. However, not all industry players are interested in this, so one should not expect mining to be completely environmentally neutral in the near future.

However, back to the negatives. Here’s another commentary on the subject.

In some places, the incessant noise from the mining centres is heard 24/7, driving residents in nearby areas to despair. Many local authorities have proved unable to deal with the noise effectively.

There are even serious complaints: in particular, a married couple from Cook County in Georgia has claimed partial hearing loss. All because of the Blockstream mining centre located nearby.

According to Decrypt’s sources, another part of the investigation focused on Stronghold Digital Mining in Venango, Pennsylvania. Here, miners burn coal waste to generate electricity and then scatter coal ash residue over land for use as fertilizer. The EWG, meanwhile, claims that the toxic substances contained in this fertilizer get into nearby rivers and streams when it rains, thereby polluting the water.

???? YOU CAN FIND MORE INTERESTING THINGS FROM US AT YANDEX.ZEN!

Analysts see the root of the problem in the Proof-of-Work (PoW) consensus algorithm. It involves constantly increasing the computing power of miners’ equipment in order to generate revenue. The PoW algorithm was integrated into Bitcoin by its anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto. Throughout the cryptocurrency’s existence, it has remained unchanged.

At times, though, prominent members of the cryptocurrency community have called for the algorithm to be revised in favour of a more energy-efficient one. In particular, Ripple co-founder Chris Larsen voiced such an initiative in March 2022. As a result, his idea was criticized by members of the BTC community.

Generally, in the past there were numerous discussions about the possibility of replacing PoW with a more energy-efficient Proof-of-Stake (PoS) algorithm, and now EWG representatives insist on that as well. As a reminder, Etherium switched to PoS last September, so there are already examples of large blockchains switching to a different consensus algorithm. However, it is unlikely that something similar will happen with BTC, as the cryptocurrency’s developers are more conservative and believe it is necessary to honour Satoshi Nakamoto’s ideas.

Popular personalities in crypto aren’t interested in this change either. Blockstream CEO Adam Beck said in response to the EWG publication that the energy cost of issuing each new bitcoin is necessary for it to function as money. Here’s his rejoinder to that.

People are buying digital gold to protect themselves against inflation and currency collapse. Central banks are buying physical gold at record rates for similar reasons. Gold is also expensive to mine.

Blockstream’s head of mining, Chris Cook, meanwhile, denied any accusations of “too much noise” from the company’s mining centres.

The main source of noise in this case is the massive equipment cooling units. They can indeed interfere, but only in the immediate vicinity of the building.

Experienced Bitcoin developer Luke Dash Jr. also criticised the EWG report. According to him, the traditional financial system is far more damaging to the environment.

PoW is actually good for the environment. The algorithm makes clean energy, like solar energy, viable on its own, whereas in the past it was also feasible to use fossil fuels to generate it in order to save money.

Such claims don't sound too convincing. And while Bitcoin mining may indeed become more environmentally friendly over time, that doesn't change the fact that some regions use "dirty" energy to run ASICs, and the industry itself does consume huge amounts of light. So, to say that mining is good for the environment is only possible in a very narrow context.


We think that it is possible to understand environmentalists' worries about power consumption by miners. However, in this case, the labor of the latter provides an independent decentralized financial system that cannot be influenced by the authorities and bureaucrats. This means that the benefits are enormous and should be taken into account.

In addition, there are many more energy-intensive activities in the world, such as construction. But for some reason, activists do not call for regulating this activity.


What do you think about it? Share your opinion in our ex-wealthy cryptochat. Maybe one day we’ll wait for a new bullrun right there.