Bitcoin miners’ access to our grid must be limited

Regarding “Research: Bitcoin may be as bad for planet as beef,” (Oct. 6): It’s ludicrous that processing and mining crypto coins should be allowed to pollute our environment as it does. A crypto coin is just a transaction on a database, backed up financially by no one in case of loss, and in the end represents nothing. The processing power required by the coin algorithms to securely place the transaction on their blockchain should not be able to access Texas’ electricity grid without a significant premium to pay for the build-out required to support the power-hungry gaming boards used to speed up computation. Blockchain technology (a decentralized, distributed public ledger) is a useful advance but does not require these advanced computations to be useful for a company.

These coins are in fact only truly useful to the gullible and the criminally inclined dark web users because the users think there is no government oversight. Of course, that is not exactly true even today and will be more the case as time ticks on. Also, soon computer hardware will likely allow for breaking the blockchain at will and stealing everything that it represents. So much for coins not backed up by government fiat.

Walt Lind, Nassau Bay

Abortion

Regarding
“Opinion: Will we be as brave as Iranians in voting for women’s rights?,” (Oct. 7): Valerie Tyler is spreading the same lies that have been spewed by the mainstream media that abortion rights have been taken away. The only thing the Supreme Court did in overturning Roe was to send the guidelines for abortions back to each state per the 10th Amendment, where they should have been all along. Put simply, the 10th Amendment limits federal powers not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, delegating them to the state — in other words, the people.

We can all vote with our feet if we don’t like the state guidelines for abortion or any other issue. Valerie has a right, and so does every other woman in Texas, to move, but she should not, nor should any media outlet, continue to propagate this message.

Barbara Goodson, Kingwood

Regarding “How much cruelty is bacon worth?” (Oct. 6): I just read Kathleen Parker’s article. While I found it insightful and an interesting read, her comment of “do we demand that industry adapt a means of production to reflect a moral people?” caused me to think again about abortion in our culture, if we are such “moral people.” I would like to see an article written by this same columnist where the subject was changed from bacon to babies. Would she have the same position for a baby, or perhaps even stronger, about this reflection of a moral people? Or would the pigs win out in a comparison to our treatment of unwanted babies?

Earl Layton, Houston

Look in the mirror

Regarding
“Opinion: Painting all Republicans as racist misses the mark,”(Oct. 5): So, it appears the more conservative readers of the Chronicle are offended by Mr. Pitts’ remarks in spite of the fact he was literally quoting the statistical analysis of a highly respected nonpartisan think tank. The numbers are there for you to see plus a couple of anecdotes Mr. Pitts shared. The Republican Party “as a corporate body” (his words) does not mean all Republicans are racist. It means its leadership and party platform includes racist ideology. If you’re uncomfortable with the facts, then maybe you should join the flat earth society.

Neal Massey, Houston