You are assuming that mining for crypto is a useful thing to begin with. Not everyone agrees with you. And many here in Iceland are not enamoured with the idea that we should build more damns and loose more waterfalls so some people can get rich off speculation. Even if it is more eco friendly than people getting rich off speculation in China.
You are assuming people will stop mining if this is banned in Iceland. That's just not how it works.
Feel free to like or dislike cryptocurrency mining (I too believe it to be a waste of energy -- but that's not the point), but it's likely not going away. So you want the "green" efforts to be as cheap and efficient as possible, if you want to outcompete the less eco friendly alternatives.
Judging from your comment Im assuming you do not live in Iceland, apologies if Im wrong.
The reality is that there are only a handful of energy providers in Iceland capable of providing the energy at this scale, Landsvirkjun being the largest (by far).
These companies are either government owned or very sensitive to political realities, and will stop selling energy to mining centers if the pressure becomes strong enough.
Why would bitcoin be harder to ban than filamentary lightbulbs? You think they can lobby harder than the transport industry that would gain from the distraction?
Why do I keep on hearing this fallacious argument? The existence, or even the inevitability of something, does not only this something should be legalized.
Following you argument, whether you like it or not, people will commit homicide. Let’s regulate it!
How do you feel about other energy intensive industries, e.g. aluminium smelting? Does Iceland not profit from selling energy to industrial customers? Why would you assume they are not doing the same with miners?
When compared to the enormous inefficiency of the global banking system, the energy consumed per transaction for crypto comes out far, far ahead. How much beef do you have to feed the average banker per transaction?
