Regarding the energy debate...
If you start from a point that bitcoin is not useful and holds no value, then it is logical and understandable that you would be of the opinion that the energy use is excessive and unnecessary.
However if you come from a starting point where you believe bitcoin is the next internet-level technological breakthrough for humankind, then you see it a little differently.
For me, the more energy bitcoin uses the better. It makes the network more secure and it drives renewable energy adoption (the most profitable way to mine bitcoin is to find the cheapest energy source possible, which is either wasted energy or renewable energy, and that is why bitcoin mining is so heavily dominated by renewable energy sources).
There's some great analysis out there that suggests that bitcoin mining is the cleanest industry in the world.
If we are to look at the energy use of every industry in this way, then it's very interesting when you assess some of the other industries.
Personally, I am not a fan of christmas lights. I do not see much value in them. And yet they have an enormous energy footprint.
I do not own a clothes dryer, we dry all our washing the traditional way. The energy footprint of clothes dryers is larger than bitcoin, and is simply a matter of convenience for people. If we are to look at bitcoin in this way, then why not everything else?
New York is looking at a bill to keep bitcoin mining off their energy grid. But they will welcome someone like pornhub for example, setting up a server farm and using their energy grid. What societal benefit are we getting from pornography? Why are we not looking at the energy footprint of porn?
And then the big cheese... gaming. Why are we tolerating the enormous energy use and carbon footprint for gaming, if we aren't prepared to tolerate it for other things?
I posit to you that this is a question of personal opinion, and whether or not you think these things are valuable, and therefore worth the energy.
Another interesting point worth considering, is that you really should compare the energy footprint with the energy used to back fiat currencies. Once upon a time this was essentially proof-of-work via the mining of gold, when currencies were backed by gold. They switched their backing to oil through the 20th century ("the petro dollar"), which essentially means it's backed by the US military. The energy footprint there is obviously enormous. I posit that should bitcoin become the world's unit of account, the energy footprint will be less than that of fiat, and exponentially more sustainable.
If you start from a point that bitcoin is not useful and holds no value, then it is logical and understandable that you would be of the opinion that the energy use is excessive and unnecessary.
However if you come from a starting point where you believe bitcoin is the next internet-level technological breakthrough for humankind, then you see it a little differently.
For me, the more energy bitcoin uses the better. It makes the network more secure and it drives renewable energy adoption (the most profitable way to mine bitcoin is to find the cheapest energy source possible, which is either wasted energy or renewable energy, and that is why bitcoin mining is so heavily dominated by renewable energy sources).
There's some great analysis out there that suggests that bitcoin mining is the cleanest industry in the world.
If we are to look at the energy use of every industry in this way, then it's very interesting when you assess some of the other industries.
Personally, I am not a fan of christmas lights. I do not see much value in them. And yet they have an enormous energy footprint.
I do not own a clothes dryer, we dry all our washing the traditional way. The energy footprint of clothes dryers is larger than bitcoin, and is simply a matter of convenience for people. If we are to look at bitcoin in this way, then why not everything else?
New York is looking at a bill to keep bitcoin mining off their energy grid. But they will welcome someone like pornhub for example, setting up a server farm and using their energy grid. What societal benefit are we getting from pornography? Why are we not looking at the energy footprint of porn?
And then the big cheese... gaming. Why are we tolerating the enormous energy use and carbon footprint for gaming, if we aren't prepared to tolerate it for other things?
I posit to you that this is a question of personal opinion, and whether or not you think these things are valuable, and therefore worth the energy.
Another interesting point worth considering, is that you really should compare the energy footprint with the energy used to back fiat currencies. Once upon a time this was essentially proof-of-work via the mining of gold, when currencies were backed by gold. They switched their backing to oil through the 20th century ("the petro dollar"), which essentially means it's backed by the US military. The energy footprint there is obviously enormous. I posit that should bitcoin become the world's unit of account, the energy footprint will be less than that of fiat, and exponentially more sustainable.