Acceso usuarios
Tom Redshaw
Bitcoin is an ecological disaster. In 2017, the Bitcoin network used the same amount of energy per year as Uruguay, when its total number of users worldwide was estimated to stand at 3.4million (Hileman and Rauchs, 2017: 99). By 2021 this number had risen to 101million, and estimates indicated the energy required to power the Bitcoin network equated to that required by all other data centres around the world combined (Blandin et al, 2020; de Vries, 2021). Moreover, Bitcoin’s growing carbon footprint shows little signs of abating in spite of significant measures to limit its usage (de Vries et al, 2022). Within the context of a global energy crisis and the broader climate emergency, regulators from Beijing to New York are increasingly considering actions that will restrict the use of the energy-intensive equipment required to power cryptocurrency networks. This article seeks to contribute to Green Criminology scholarship and inform regulatory efforts by (1) outlining the trade-off made in the design process for cryptocurrencies that lies at the root of the problem; (2) emphasising the urgency of this issue via an extensive review of existing studies; and (3) drawing on the constructivist approach in studies of science and technology to highlight and examine the sociological tensions that may hinder regulatory efforts. In short, sustainable pathways of cryptocurrency development demonstrably do exist yet they present significant challenges to what many in the cryptocurrency industry hold to be the raison d’etre of, in particular, Bitcoin
