I bet you feel the same way about minerals whose extraction process is vastly more damaging to the environment.
Early adopters benefit because they incur more risk than later adopters.
Early adopters benefit because they incur more risk than later adopters.
I don't understand this reasoning: is "X is bad but Y is worse" supposed to convince people that X is actually good?
I think everybody with sufficient information would agree that we should limit both harmful mineral extraction and the runaway energy usage of cryptocurrencies.
Maybe don't read things that are not written or said? My point is that you think cryptocurrencies have a negative impact on global warming so I think you probably feel the same way about mineral extraction.
Most people will fight any new information that contradicts their held beliefs so I won't suggest you look at the use of renewable energy in cryptocurrency mining or try to convince you that most miners optimise their costs by using solar and hydro power.
Phrased as such, it sounds like you're calling me or the GP a hypocrite. But to be clear, I do care about mineral extraction, and I try to make choices as a consumer that limit my (relatively small) effect on the overall market.
I have quite a few friends who work in the cryptocurrency space (either at ICO'd firms or as professional auditors), so I'm familiar with the economics of choosing clean energy sources. But that neither factors in the net increase in grid demand nor the double-bind of hydro power in places like China. So I don't think we're off the hook, morally speaking.