Re: Here we go again...
>Because I really don't want the government telling me what I can use electricity to do.
I get your position. I really do. I don't like the idea of being told what I can use power for by a committee of people who, even if they were well-intentioned, would be several layers removed from me and can't possibly understand the reasons for the specific usage patterns of every single person. And I don't like the idea of creating that ability and then potentially having it in the hands of a committee of people who are not well-intentioned.
However.
1) Load-shedding is already a thing. It has been a thing since forever. Similarly, differences between pricing for consumer and industrial usage have been a thing since forever. None of this has been really abused by governments, as far as I know. Would you be uncomfortable with legislation that simply makes sure that crypto mining gets considered as industrial usage, with the attendant priority and tariffs? Physical mining can and does get cut off by "the government" (regulator agencies, actually, but nevermind), or taxed differently from tea kettles, and as far as I know nobody has ever considered this an attack on civil liberties.
I mean, if running electrical smelters at home ever became a widespread hobby, I really wouldn't mind attempts to figure out if it can be brought into the same rules as running electrical smelters in a factory. It's still smelting.
2) Crypto mining is not just any hobby. Cryptocurrency has few legitimate uses, and is widely used in support of illegal activity. It's interesting that you bring up Vegas and casinos, because those are exactly the examples I would have made. Gambling is something that you can do as a harmless, fun hobby - but it causes far more harm than good. Because of this, they are activities that are extremely heavily regulated and taxed. This, too, is mostly not considered an attack on civil liberties.
So, the existance of Vegas and casinos actually support the argument that crypto doesn't need to be considered the same thing as Netflix.
3) The idea that, once I pay the tariff, the power is mine to do as I wish, is a typical free-market ethical position - I pay for the thing, the thing is mine, all constraints compensated for. I get it. I have objections to it, but they don't matter right now. What matters is that electricity is not a free market, has never been one, doesn't even vaguely look like one, can't be made to work like one, not even in theory (because of natural monopolies and massive externalities).
IOW, that tariff you pay is the number it is because it has a lot of hidden strings, and assumptions about what you're doing with it. Otherwise, domestic usage would be a horrible mess. It looks like you are free to do whatever with the power you buy only because domestic usage is very predictable, and regulation can handle it by mere statistical means. But if a significant chunk of domestic usage deviates from the means, regulation can, and will, and ethically has to change to handle the new pattern. Again, this is mostly not considered an attack on civil liberties (if only because of the effective illusion of free market we are accustomed to).