You do understand that nobody forces anyone to gamble or speculate with cryptocurrencies, right?
See: Nvidia ship shortage, Bitcoin CO2 emissions, tons of ASICS destruction because miners are literally stealing electricity, ....
It's the same reason why psychoactive drugs are forbidden: no one forces you to use them, but everyone has to deal with the negative consequences of their usage. I don't think we should put drug users in prison, but I d'ont want to see a meth store at every street corner either.
Bitcoins co2 will get better, its also less than the energy used in trafitional finance (buildings, employee's, security, mining, etc). If anything crypro mining is encouraging green energy and able to locate itself to use otherwise wasted energy.
The war on drugs is one of the most useless and innefective policies EVER. It was created on racist terms to combat hippies and black activists, to protect monopolies (tabacco, big pharma) and it has led to the largest non violent prison state in history and made criminal cartels immensely wealthy. Not to mention the billions wasted and the millions dead. Look at Portugal, making drugs legal is the way forward.
Prohibition doesnt work. If you are afraid of cheats, gambling and pollution.. look no further than the big banks caught over and over laundering money for cartels and arms dealers the world over and to the largest polluter peotecting them, the military.
I guess we need a government to regulate all these things, the same way they did with the victorious war on drugs.
At least you don't have a meth store at every street corner, right, what a win
I would expect a court to find that PoS is close enough to PoW as Congress intends this legislation, without digressing into the various types of PoS. While poorly written, it is likely that pure network operations will be ok long term.
"The Warner-Sinema-Portman amendment has been widely criticized by the crypto community for imposing tax reporting requirements on non-custodial actors like miners and software developers who don’t record customer information."
The one that exempts miners has not been adopted (the rival Wyden-Toomey-Luumis amendment).
AIUI, this is saying that the first amendment (which enacts the reporting requirement in the first place) has been accepted. The second amendment (which adds the explicit exemptions you mentioned) hasn't been decided on yet as far as I can tell.