When The Hobbit was filmed at 48fps, the consensus amongst many (most?) cinephiles was that the high frame rate looked bad. In my opinion, the consensus was wrong. To me, it looked better.

Back in the 1940s to 1960s, most soap operas were broadcast live rather than shot on film, which meant that they looked a lot better than if they had been shot on film. Live looks better than film, mostly due to the higher frame rate. If we were forced to watch the news, or football/basketball/baseball, at 24fps, we'd all be howling due to the loss of picture quality.

Now, as to why most people who speak up on the subject think that motion pictures are SUPPOSED to have low frame rates and are SUPPOSED to look worse than live TV, well... I don't get it. If they'd been around 75 years ago they might be arguing that movies are all SUPPOSED to be viewed in black and white instead of that new-fangled color technology, since color looks jarringly more realistic than B&W. I can see them arguing "Color looks unnatural!!" because it's different from what they'd come to expect from the movie-watching experience.

Unfortunately for the purists, I don't mind saying that the emperor is naked. Color is better than B&W. Live is better than film. High frame rate is better than low frame rate. I'd rather put up with occasional manufactured artifacts than put up with the crappy blurriness of 24fps.

If you want low frame rate movies, with blurring and low resolution movement, go for it and enjoy it. But at least acknowledge that 24fps was state-of-the-art 100+ years ago, but is ancient now, and looks agonizingly worse high frame rates.

I figure that the anachronistic 24fps lovers will eventually die off, and later generations will wonder what all the fuss was about.

Guns don't cause NEARLY as many deaths as cars. Plus, cars cause are a major contributor to global warming. Not only that, but cars aren't protected by the Bill of Rights, so it'd be easy to outlaw them. So, if you REALLY cared, you'd ban cars way before guns. But I'm guess you're more interested in getting rid of guns than you are of saving lives, or stopping global warming.

Get a "Kill-O-Watt" for about $20. Test a PC at idle. Then load up the bitcoin processes, and test again. You will indeed find that the PC is drawing considerably more power under load than at idle. Multiply the increase in wattage by the number of hours in a month, then by the number of PCs you're talking about, and then divide by 1000 to get the increase in kilowatt hours. Multiply that by your cost of power per KWh.

Then go read how increasingly impossible it's becoming to mine coins, and how you'll have a very difficult time getting one.

Then don't do it.