So instead of creating an inflationary cost-demand pull by having an abundance of self-sustaining energy sources and not enough demand for energy by people (they are content with the amount they have obviously) - Greenland bitcoin mining uses energy that:
1. Doesn't cost anyone fuel to purchase in order to generate electricity.
2. Is from the environment and in abundance so much so that it's self sustaining sources are an opportunity cost to the government of Greenland if they didn't use the natural sources to generate electricity for SOME use after using a minute amount of the electricity produced for its inhabitants.
3. Since the energy is from resources that don't hurt the environment to produce green electricity and much of it, why not make it and put it to good use?
4. Since demand for Bitcoin has risen for over 13 years now since its inception and mining is an important and rewarding process even to those who pay high electricity costs or have to burn fuel to produce electricity at expense of the environment, using your own green renewable energy helps your nation and its people monetize its unused energy (i.e. the energy producing electricity etc. that people don't consume in Greenland).
Yeah that's pretty damn brilliant. I guess it is relative on a national level to this:
1. How much energy does your population need to consumer to survive and sustain a living and produce goods to sell other nations etc.
2. What's the cost of energy production in your country to produce the electricity required to mine bitcoin blocks? What's the profit and is it at the expense of your environment or is it from a green energy source like Greenland?
3. If you have any "potential self-sustainable green energy" sources in your nation, what's the opportunity cost of NOT putting it to use to create Bitcoin rewards for your operation?
I imagine in #3, the profitability is endless with their massive amounts of green energy sources and small population consumption of energy.
You have just officially proven that using electricity/energy in excess of your population is a GOOD thing if you have the right combination of natural green energy sources, a population that only needs a small percent of that green energy, and renewable-sustained by nature sources as the fuel (as opposed to burning fossil fuels).
This is the best article I've read in awhile. I also got here since I was reading old USENET posts on the Google Groups archives that carry them over to the WWW =) a post by "x" on Dec 9, 2002 was done from the UTC -3 time zone so Greenland, Brazil, down to Buenos Aires, Argentina made me think -- why was the author of the post writing from one of these places about something so very similar to Bitcoin in nature. You can read my tweet storm about it. Now we know why Trump wanted to buy Greenland - and no not for another shitty hotel like we have at Trump Chicago ;)
https://twitter.com/DevOfDevcoinSt/status/1527048870869577730