Perhaps I'd agree if bitcoin was useful for daily transactions like the classic cup of coffee. If its just a tool for speculators, money laundering and generally just people trying to get rich it is a waste of energy.
The argument is "Bitcoin uses energy, but Bitcoin does something useful, so that energy is not wasted", only longer.
That argument is incorrect, because there are alternatives to Bitcoin which do the same things, but use much less energy.
I, personally, would argue that those alternatives include normal money. But even if you don't agree, you must accept that other cryptocurrencies are alternatives, and there are are several that are much more energy-efficient than Bitcoin. I note that the word "Ethereum" does not appear anywhere in this article.
The article is longer than this comment because it is padded out with bog-standard crypto-libertarian economic illiteracy on parade, so if you enjoy that, do click through!
> Bitcoin will consume any and all energy resources necessary to secure its monetary network,
> which is inherently driven by the base demand to hold it as a currency. The more people
> that value the long-term stability it provides, the more energy it will consume.
> In the end, this consumption will ensure all other derivatives of energy consumption will
> continue to be fulfilled, which is why there is no more important long-term use of energy
> than securing the bitcoin network. Put a price on economic stability and the economic freedom
> a stable monetary system provides; that is the true justification for the amount of energy
> bitcoin should and will consume. Everything else is a distraction.
--
Rhetoric of the article in a nutshell: Economic stability is priceless. Bitcoin is the one true way
to have economic stability. The energy used by Bitcoin is then not wasted, however massive it is.
The argument made here is obviously absurd, but I wonder if it is this because the vast resources wasted by Bitcoin are truly indefensible, or does it just happen to be a particularly bad argument?
8 comments
[ 17.1 ms ] story [ 28.1 ms ] thread- Upton Sinclair
(related reading: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Katie_Taladay/publicati... )
But doesn't really answer why we need blockchain specifically instead of something that doesn't need energy intensive digital mining.
The argument is "Bitcoin uses energy, but Bitcoin does something useful, so that energy is not wasted", only longer.
That argument is incorrect, because there are alternatives to Bitcoin which do the same things, but use much less energy.
I, personally, would argue that those alternatives include normal money. But even if you don't agree, you must accept that other cryptocurrencies are alternatives, and there are are several that are much more energy-efficient than Bitcoin. I note that the word "Ethereum" does not appear anywhere in this article.
The article is longer than this comment because it is padded out with bog-standard crypto-libertarian economic illiteracy on parade, so if you enjoy that, do click through!
> which is inherently driven by the base demand to hold it as a currency. The more people
> that value the long-term stability it provides, the more energy it will consume.
> In the end, this consumption will ensure all other derivatives of energy consumption will
> continue to be fulfilled, which is why there is no more important long-term use of energy
> than securing the bitcoin network. Put a price on economic stability and the economic freedom
> a stable monetary system provides; that is the true justification for the amount of energy
> bitcoin should and will consume. Everything else is a distraction.
--
Rhetoric of the article in a nutshell: Economic stability is priceless. Bitcoin is the one true way to have economic stability. The energy used by Bitcoin is then not wasted, however massive it is.
Is there any actual justification for it?