Search

The environmental impact of Bitcoin mining has become a significant concern, prompting several governments to consider or implement bans on cryptocurrency mining. However, these well-intentioned policies may lead to unintended consequences, notably the redirection of mining activities to regions with higher carbon intensities. This study aims to quantify the environmental effectiveness of Bitcoin mining bans by estimating the resultant carbon emissions from displaced mining operations. Our findings indicate that, contrary to policy goals, Bitcoin mining bans in low-emission countries can result in a net increase in global carbon emissions, a form of aggravated carbon leakage. We further explore the policy implications of these results, suggesting that more nuanced approaches may be required to mitigate the environmental impact of cryptocurrency mining effectively. This research contributes to the broader discourse on sustainable cryptocurrency regulation and provides a data-driven foundation for evaluating the true environmental costs of Bitcoin regulatory policies., Comment: 16 pages, 3 figures, 4 tables

This document is written as an academic exercise, with the goal of exploring the feasibility of writing a white paper in accordance with Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (MiCA). It is meant as a Proof of Concept (PoC) illustrating a concrete application of the requirements of MiCA. Like the MiCA white papers PoC shared by ESMA, this document is solely for the purposes of the PoC, to inform the public as to how a crypto-asset white paper could work, inspire public debate and feedback, and enhance the public conversation around the implementation of EU regulations., Comment: 32 pages

For more than a decade, Bitcoin has gained as much adoption as it has received criticism. Fundamentally, Bitcoin is under fire for the high carbon footprint that results from the energy-intensive proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithm. There is a trend however for Bitcoin mining to adopt a trajectory toward achieving carbon-negative status, notably due to the adoption of methane-based mining and mining-based flexible load response (FLR) to complement variable renewable energy (VRE) generation. Miners and electricity sellers may increase their profitability not only by taking advantage of excess energy, but also by selling green tokens to buyers interested in greening their portfolios. Nevertheless, a proper ''green Bitcoin'' accounting system requires a standard framework for the accreditation of sustainable bitcoin holdings. The proper way to build such a framework remains contested. In this paper, we survey the different sustainable Bitcoin accounting systems. Analyzing the various alternatives, we suggest a path forward., Comment: 7 pages

Despite their potential in many respects, blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) technology have been the target of criticism for the energy intensity of the proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithm in general and of Bitcoin mining in particular. However, mining is also believed to have the potential to drive net decarbonization and renewable penetration in the energy grid by providing ancillary and other services. In this paper, we systematize the state of the art in this regard. Although not completely absent from the literature, the extent to which flexible load response (FLR) through PoW mining may support grid decarbonization remains insufficiently studied and hence contested. We approach this research gap by systematizing both the strengths and the limitations of mining to provide FLR services for energy grids. We find that a net-decarbonizing effect led by renewable-based mining is indeed plausible., Comment: A previous version of this paper was titled "Can Bitcoin Stop Climate Change? Proof of Work, Energy Consumption and Carbon Footprint (SoK)"

Blockchain technology and, more generally, distributed ledger technology (DLT) systems, face public scrutiny for their energy consumption levels. However, many point out that high energy consumption is a feature of (small block size) proof-of-work (PoW) DLTs, but not of proof-of-stake (PoS) DLTs. With the energy consumption of PoS systems being an under-researched area, we replicate, expand and update embryonary work modelling it and comparing different PoS-based DLTs with each other and with other non-PoS systems. In doing so, we suggest and implement a number of improvements to an existing PoS energy consumption model. We find that there may be significant differences in the energy consumption of PoS systems analysed and confirm that, regardless of these differences, their energy consumption is several orders of magnitude below that of Bitcoin Core., Comment: 27 pages, 3 figures, working paper

Popular distributed ledger technology (DLT) systems using proof-of-work (PoW) for Sybil attack resistance have extreme energy requirements, drawing stern criticism from academia, businesses, and the media. DLT systems building on alternative consensus mechanisms, foremost proof-of-stake (PoS), aim to address this downside. In this paper, we take a first step towards comparing the energy requirements of such systems to understand whether they achieve this goal equally well. While multiple studies have been undertaken that analyze the energy demands of individual Blockchains, little comparative work has been done. We approach this research question by formalizing a basic consumption model for PoS blockchains. Applying this model to six archetypal blockchains generates three main findings: First, we confirm the concerns around the energy footprint of PoW by showing that Bitcoin's energy consumption exceeds the energy consumption of all PoS-based systems analyzed by at least three orders of magnitude. Second, we illustrate that there are significant differences in energy consumption among the PoSbased systems analyzed, with permissionless systems having an overall larger energy footprint. Third, we point out that the type of hardware that validators use has a considerable impact on whether PoS blockchains' energy consumption is comparable with or considerably larger than that of centralized, non-DLT systems.

Triple-entry accounting (TEA) is one of the novelest notions in the blockchain world. However, the lack of a consistent and comprehensive set of categories to give account of it impedes a proper apprehension of the concept, leading to contradictions and to overlooking its specificity. In order to clearly delineate the confines of TEA, we create a typology to distinguish between essential elements such as accounting and bookkeeping, as well as between decentralized systems, distributed ledgers and distributed journals.

The concept of shared ledger systems offering a single source of truth has repeatedly called traditional bookkeeping into question. Improving upon the long-standing double-entry system, solutions such as the Resource-Event-Agent (REA) accounting framework, triple-entry accounting (TEA) and blockchain have been advanced. However, to date, the historical development of these concepts remains murky. This paper conducts a genealogical analysis of shared ledger systems, in particular tracing the development of REA, TEA and blockchain. We show how the REA framework has had a distinct influence on independent streams of research in the field of TEA, and how this interaction may be traced to the present incarnation of shared ledger systems in blockchain. In doing so, we duly acknowledge the influence of key individuals contributing to this development, correct common misconceptions and map out how the paths of REA, TEA and blockchain overlap in the realm of shared ledger systems., Comment: 73 pages, 5 figures