FWIW, [2] doesn't seem to offer substantive criticism at all. It mentions a couple independent verifications of the numbers in [1], with one complaint (from a v

FWIW, [2] doesn't seem to offer substantive criticism at all. It mentions a couple independent verifications of the numbers in [1], with one complaint (from a very biased party) whose claims are not sourced. This pretty much lines up with what I've seen in all Bitcoin energy use debaters: the evangelists insist the numbers are all wrong, but never really provide any evidence to that point.