It would have been nice to add a source. I've found this one: https://ambcrypto.com/swedens-fsa-calls-for-energy-intensive-mining-of-crypto-assets-to-be-prohibited/


I find it overly harsh, but I also expect some of the politicians join this kind of movements especially now since the Methane and electricity prices rose so high (imho exactly because of politics not well thought, but implemented in a hurry). I fail to understand how on earth they cannot see that if they ban it, they will only make it illegal, not actually stop it.

This is an interesting update and I wonder how many other countries will start to ask about these types of things when it comes to changing laws. Of course the problem here is that proof of stake is not as good of a system as proof of work is.

I don't know if I can call it interesting but the news is definitely one that might lead to similar ideas. Though, I do not feel Sweden has the same influence on this as China once did, and as we know having an agreement reached by all the counties of the EU is no easy task. Even if this becomes a recognisable approval it will take time to be implemented.

Though, overall something to keep an outlook for as I expect more of these news to emerge.

That's correct. The overall energy consumption is bound to rise. But the politicians pursue short-medium term goals (so they can brag with some results and ask for re-election) instead of looking on the big picture and give it a good long-term thinking.

Solar energy is great, but filling all the crops with solar panels is silly.
Wind power is great, but from that I know those huge carbon fiber blades cannot be recycled properly.
Nuclear fission is considered dangerous.
Nuclear fusion is a nice dream. Not reality.
Burning fossil fuels is bad for environment.
Hydro power is not that great either - at least for the few that have to be relocated when new dams are created or when they break (!).


OK, hydro still wins imho. But that's not enough. Something more has to be done, and that in max 10 years. I mean, nowadays, politically, burning methane for creating electricity is "better" than nuclear fission. I don't know... I think that there's more of politics than science in those decisions and it's a shame.


PS. I'm not a big fan of nuclear fission either, but I just don't see yet a proper alternative to that.

Bulk of the energy sources used in countries are non renewable. Therefore this is bound to happen sooner of later, at the end of the day until and unless the government makes a sound decision to explore their countrie's renewable sources of energy, it would not only be ban on mining, soon enough there might be power shortage or worse. Plus Germany, UK, Sweden and Spain are the top 4 in using renewable sources of energy as well.

The reason why the price is so high is not even because of that, the demand fell due to covid and now suddenly it's sky rocketing so the producers are struggling to make it work now.

In few years this situation would be even worse, therefore I do believe that, Sweden might influence the global market in regards to mining for sure, not at such a high scale but yes the influence might be there since this is not the problem of one sole country. I do believe it's high time mining companies explore renewable sources of energy.

IN-BEFORE-NEXT-COUNTRY

ALL countries will have to ban/prohibit bitcoin.
why
because its the only legal method to then have control of licencing/permits of use of bitcoin within institutions.

a bank does not have permission to offer investments in bitcoin unless it has authorisation from government
a government cant offer permission unless it first took away the use of it.

its the same thing as alcohol prohibition
prostitution prohibition
gambling
and many others

they cant regulate, licence, insure, police something until they first ban it.. then they have control of who they can allow to use it under their licence.


take the NY bitlicence
they had to ban all bitcoin activity in NY .. and then just months later offer the bitlicence..

Instead of banning cryptomining as a whole, why don't they sanction some other industries that are using too much energy and are contributing less on towards the economy? Or better, why not tone down on energy use on all sectors in order to meet the quota/demand of the Paris agreement? It's as if cryptomining is the only culprit to this long-standing problem, and the only solution there is in order to cut down on carbon emissions is to kill it.

It's a harsh call, but then again I expect to see most of the EU to follow suit on the suggestions. Perhaps not to the degree of banning cryptomining as a whole, but making it hard for miners to keep a steady operation going.

That's really odd! Because I believe Sweden was the first country in the world to create a completely cashless economy quite successfully. That shows their technical advancements but now with this comment, I would think twice before calling them advanced.

I am sure the government officials are misguided by the banking lobby. The banking industry has seen that they are unable to fight with the popularity of bitcoin. So they are trying to take different ways to fight it and this could be one if those different ways.

Simple, those industries that you're alluding too are beneficial to the very politicians that re proposing this idea. Just think about it; they need oil, they need fossil fuels, however they don't actually need Bitcoin, therefore to save face, and prove they're doing something about climate change they'll focus their attention on limiting the production of Bitcoin. Depending on how much of a conspiracy theorist you're then you could potentially argue that they're killing two birds with one stone with this approach.

Honestly, the way the world is going with climate change being the buzz word on everyone's tongue I expect a lot of countries to follow suit, and ban Bitcoin mining, and they'll blame it on Proof Of Work.