I have as much right to tell you so as you have to tell me otherwise.

Your property rights aren't absolute. You're using resources provided by society, thus society has a legitimate interest in the cost and benefit of that usage.

The benefit to society of providing me resources is that I pay them for them. Once that deal is done and I've paid for my electricity, I'm free to do what I want providing I cause no harm - this is my inalienable right.

Whether or not Bitcoin hashing causes harm is precisely the question, and one you seem unwilling to engage with. The evidence that "hashing some data" is causing harm can be found in the linked article and elsewhere throughout the web. But you continue to purposely use specious and minimizing language that makes it seem as if we're just talking about hashing an MD5 address on your specific computer, alone.

Something tells me that even conceding the existence of the aggregate, you would still refuse to acknowledge its relevance, maintaining that the specific instance of your own hashing doesn't cause damage any more than a single snowflake is responsible for an avalanche. But that isn't an argument that Bitcoin mining isn't harmful, it's an argument that you don't care either way.

You're correct in predicting that I won't see the relevance. And the attached article is a case of noise disturbance - something that's not inherent to bitcoin mining, and unrelated to electricity usage. Should we ban all loudspeakers because some people turn them up too loud and disturb their neighbours? Of course not. We should seek remedy from the few who do, for unlawfully breaching our peace.

Perhaps you should consider your own arrogance, that you think you should be able to stop me using electricity for something that doesn't cause any harm, but which you ignorantly believe doesn't provide me enough benefit. It's none of your business.

Show me the evidence of the harm the act of hashing data causes. All you can present is some claim that using electricity causes harm. Well that applies to everything you plug into the wall, including electric vehicles, clothes dryers and Christmas lights.

Again, what right does anyone have to enforce that I should not be supplied electricity because they deem that I use it inefficiently? I pay for the electricity I use, just as everyone else does.

In any case, if my use of electricity is inefficient then whatever I'm using it for will ultimately be succeeded by a more efficient alternative that provides the same benefits (I wouldn't advise holding your breath).

Yes, we should seek remedy for those that do cause harm. Unfortunately, state law is not actually properly protecting these people from the noise levels, as the fine for violating the law in this case is laughably low, and the mining company just writes it down as a (very minor) cost of doing business.

Another poster here (who lives there) says the local government also offered this company a tax break when they moved in. Sounds like the government doesn't actually have the best interests of its citizens in mind.

So, to be clear: I do agree with you that we shouldn't just "ban Bitcoin mining". We should require, however, that miners -- especially large-scale ones like this -- are paying for the externalities of their business. Too much noise? They need to spend a bunch of money on proper noise isolation. They should be paying their fair share of taxes, and not getting tax breaks. They should be paying for the environmental impact of their added electricity usage, if any. If their electricity usage requires building new power plants and/or fortifying existing grid connections or transmission lines, they should bear the cost of that work, alone. Residents should not be seeing higher electricity costs because of companies like this, but the article claims they are.

If paying for these externalities makes mining unprofitable to the point that they shut down, so be it.

> what right does anyone have to enforce that I should not be supplied electricity because they deem that I use it inefficiently?

You keep bringing this up, but seem to have no idea how society works: governments and citizens have that right. That's how laws work. People like something, so they write a law to encourage it. People don't like something, so they write a law to ban it. There's no natural right to use electricity any way you want. (In fact there's no such thing as "natural rights": our rights are defined by humans and enumerated by legal documents, and there are governments that are willing to enforce them.)

Again, I'm not saying we should legally ban Bitcoin mining; I think there are better ways to deal with the problem, as I outlined above. But governments and citizens absolutely have the right to write laws that restrict what people do with electricity. That's just basic civics.

> Another poster here (who lives there) says the local government also offered this company a tax break when they moved in. Sounds like the government doesn't actually have the best interests of its citizens in mind.

That was likely because they didn't expect it to be noisy. This is something that is relatively easily fixed by adding more sound insulation to the building. If the fine is too low to encourage this, then that is a problem with the law enforcement, not bitcoin mining.

> If their electricity usage requires building new power plants and/or fortifying existing grid connections or transmission lines, they should bear the cost of that work, alone. Residents should not be seeing higher electricity costs because of companies like this, but the article claims they are.

Would you say the same for data centres? Should computer gamers be forced to pay for the power plants that supply the energy that they used? Why are you singling out one particular use of energy? If its using a lot of energy, then it's also paying for a lot of energy, and likely very profitable energy as it's a constant demand rather than volatile which can be very wasteful for production.

> You keep bringing this up, but seem to have no idea how society works: governments and citizens have that right.

I keep bringing it up, because they do not have that right. Governments can try to enforce legislation, but if it's unlawful/unconstitutional then they will fail assuming the judicial system is correctly independent. If I do something with energy that I have fairly obtained and what I do does not harm anyone else (which hashing data does not, just as computer gaming doesn't) then attempts to stop me would be a breach of my peace and I could and would, sue for damages.