366
Bitcoin miners win legal battle to keep mum about energy use [US]
(www.theverge.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
366 points (94.4% liked)
Technology
58143 readers
4447 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Everyone is a bit shit here (including whoever came up with that title...). No one "won" anything here.
DoE wanted to use "emergency" measures to survey miner's energy use, which is likely outside of the scope of the original intent of such powers (which appears to be why the judge granted a temporary restraining order?).
The Bitcoin miner's claim the data release would cause "irreparable harm to their business..." If that's not an admission of guilt, then I don't know what is.
It's just a type of pretrial injunction. You need to show that irreparable harm would come if the DOE did this. It's helpful to have the case look like you'd win. Since the judge already said that it looks like they'd win, he'd likely extend it all the way to the end of the trial.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/temporary_restraining_order
Thanks! I wasn't clear on that detail!