Mike said that science is an endless process, like the allegedly ever expanding universe, per scientific research.

I agree with this statement. However, at what point, or what would have to happen for you to cease to trust in these particular third parties. Would there have to be research to contradict the current evidence? Research, so damning that the past decades would be for naught? If so, do you believe such research or evidence would ever see the light of day?

A lot of the loss of trust is due to the lack of accountability and the unwillingness for people/institutions to admit their mistakes publicly and take responsibility. I agree with you that for progress to succeed and for knowledge to be exchanged and for our understanding to flourish we need to seek the advice of experts, but I also understand deeply how the experts have been wrong before. At one point, the experts of North American thought it was best to kill 55 million buffalo and erase a culture.

At least you admit you are trusting someone(s). I appreciate the honesty.

Bitcoin doesn’t need governments, but bitcoiners can certainly be impacted by governments. If it gets bad enough, people have to move or engage with the black market. It can affect the timeline of adoption and have material negative effects.

I am not saying to defer to people who are way too focused on CO2. But it is good to point out to people why bitcoin is important, why demand response is useful for the grid, how small bitcoin’s footprint is compared to other important things, etc.

Because a lot of normal people genuinely don’t know. They think bitcoin is a gambling thing that hurts the environment. Even Bill Maher hates it and doesn’t get it.

There is still a lot of low-hanging fruit to help them see what it is.

Exactly this. Determining a “just” use of electricity is a fool’s errand. More likely, a deceitful attempt at market control. People consume energy for reasons they believe to valuable and can be quite subjective. It’s not the use we need to concerned about. It’s the production of energy abundance that we should ensure is done in the most sustainable way long term.

Ban on mining makes no sense. Like, what are you banning - the use of electricity? ASICs? Personal computing? Data centers? Don’t see how that would ever hold up in court.

I don’t think you understand my point, it isn’t about the price of electricity, it’s about how electricity is transmitted to the end use point.

If everyone runs a miner at their residential address, that does an end around on the price of transmission lines. Typically heavy electrical users must pay for a transmission line that is adequate for their use case.

Except that’s not how utilities budget or build their infrastructure. If heavy usage is in a location that was built for typical residential use, then the income from that usage doesn’t afford the utility the ability to upgrade the potentially hundreds of miles of transmission lines that brought the electricity to that spot. The electrical usage needs to be in the proper PLACE in the network, not all locations are built equally. That’s why there are wooden poles with one wire some spots, others with three, others larger and steel with 3 thicker wires, others with 6 thicker wires. Electrical transmission is both complicated and expensive business, one that is hardly ready or designed for bitcoin.

Except they aren’t, they are high use consumers.

This is a significant difference from the majority of electricity consumers, and is more akin to industrial users.

High electrical use can strain electrical infrastructure and reduce reliability of the whole grid. Ie-increasing wear and tear on transmission lines, transformers, switches, and limiting their lifespan.

If bitcoin miners can afford to pay for their electricity at the prevailing market rate, then they are no different from any other consumer of electricity. The end.