I think these next few are fairly quick responses;
c) is grossly inefficient and wastes an incredible amount of energy resources
This is a subjective opinion. To say something is a waste is simply your personal view. I don't play computer games therefore I believe the energy expended in that industry is a complete waste. Same with clothes dryers and christmas lights and any number of things I don't indulge in, but that use a vast amount of energy (all these examples use more than the bitcoin network). But I refrain from saying things like that, as these things are obviously more important to others who do not complain about their energy use.
Additionally, and more importantly, bitcoin provides the best use case for uptake of renewable energy, and utilisation of waste energy, providing a carbon-negative outcome. There are schools of thought coming out now, backed by good data, suggesting that bitcoin mining could in fact be the key to shifting the world to renewable energy. That's a new and exciting area of study that I will hopefully be able to talk more about as I get more in-depth on it.
I've written plenty on the energy use aspect of bitcoin so will not go any further, you can see my previous posts for more views on this if you want to.
d) is one of the most volatile assets that is widely traded and with a large market cap
I've just spoken about this at length but essentially it's in its infancy, I expect it to be volatile for some time yet, until it becomes more widely understood.
e) is 'maintained' by a very small number of developers who could, if they decided to, alter the source code
This is not true. Consensus must be gained by the network to introduce changes. The bitcoin improvement proposal process is how changes are made, and the market talks when it comes to changes. The blocksize war of 2015-17 was the ultimate proof of this sort of point - large individual players desperately wanted changes that would help them personally, but the individual low level node operators out-voted them and prevented this.
If this was possible then bitcoin most certainly would have been killed off already, by nation state (or financial organisation) corruption of these individuals supposedly capable of changing the code by themselves.
c) is grossly inefficient and wastes an incredible amount of energy resources
This is a subjective opinion. To say something is a waste is simply your personal view. I don't play computer games therefore I believe the energy expended in that industry is a complete waste. Same with clothes dryers and christmas lights and any number of things I don't indulge in, but that use a vast amount of energy (all these examples use more than the bitcoin network). But I refrain from saying things like that, as these things are obviously more important to others who do not complain about their energy use.
Additionally, and more importantly, bitcoin provides the best use case for uptake of renewable energy, and utilisation of waste energy, providing a carbon-negative outcome. There are schools of thought coming out now, backed by good data, suggesting that bitcoin mining could in fact be the key to shifting the world to renewable energy. That's a new and exciting area of study that I will hopefully be able to talk more about as I get more in-depth on it.
I've written plenty on the energy use aspect of bitcoin so will not go any further, you can see my previous posts for more views on this if you want to.
d) is one of the most volatile assets that is widely traded and with a large market cap
I've just spoken about this at length but essentially it's in its infancy, I expect it to be volatile for some time yet, until it becomes more widely understood.
e) is 'maintained' by a very small number of developers who could, if they decided to, alter the source code
This is not true. Consensus must be gained by the network to introduce changes. The bitcoin improvement proposal process is how changes are made, and the market talks when it comes to changes. The blocksize war of 2015-17 was the ultimate proof of this sort of point - large individual players desperately wanted changes that would help them personally, but the individual low level node operators out-voted them and prevented this.
If this was possible then bitcoin most certainly would have been killed off already, by nation state (or financial organisation) corruption of these individuals supposedly capable of changing the code by themselves.