5 ms·

The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility o

The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. Bitcoin is the only asset with these properties, and it doesn't need many transactions to do what it does best. If you find you're angry about Bitcoin's energy usage but you're not even more angry about the energy wasted by industries and technologies that have much less social utility, then maybe it's not the wasted energy that you're angry about after all.

mint2 6y ago
> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!
- toyg 6y ago
  Let's not forget druglords, illegal arms dealers, hitmen...
  - meowkit 6y ago
    Paging argument from 2010... You would use Monero or physical cash for those activities. Bitcoin is much easier to trace once you have a lead.
    - toyg 6y ago
      It's just a tradeoff between opsec and ease of use. Monero is harder to turn back into cash, precisely because it carries a worse reputation. Note that my argument was pro btc - I can see underground demand sustaining its price in the long run.
  - Solvitieg 6y ago
    Because you definitely can't do that with fiat... This is such an old, tired take.
    - bayesian_horse 6y ago
      No, you really can't do that easily and sometimes at all with "fiat". Which is why "money laundering" is a thing. Or drug cartels having the problem to stash or move hundreds of thousands of small dollar bills over North and South American borders. A somewhat trustworthy state having control over or transparency into money transfers generally is a very good thing. If your government isn't trustworthy enough, you have bigger problems than the currency.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - toyg 6y ago
      When it comes to truth, old != bad. The oldest profession is still around, for example, because demand will always be there.
- panarky 6y ago
  That's always the problem with freedom, it works for good guys and bad guys alike.
TomVDB 6y ago
There are industries with less social utility than Bitcoin?
paulgb 6y ago
> However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, [...] then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. The amount of energy used in equilibrium in Bitcoin mining is proportional to the price of Bitcoin (between halvings and holding the fraction of total mining costs spent on energy constant). If the price of Bitcoin rose enough that it had a 2TN market cap tomorrow, miners would have incentives to burn 3-4x more energy. I agree that transaction-based accounting is flawed, but it doesn’t make the problem go away.

mint2 6y ago

> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!

toyg 6y ago
Let's not forget druglords, illegal arms dealers, hitmen...
- meowkit 6y ago
  Paging argument from 2010... You would use Monero or physical cash for those activities. Bitcoin is much easier to trace once you have a lead.
  - toyg 6y ago
    It's just a tradeoff between opsec and ease of use. Monero is harder to turn back into cash, precisely because it carries a worse reputation. Note that my argument was pro btc - I can see underground demand sustaining its price in the long run.
- Solvitieg 6y ago
  Because you definitely can't do that with fiat... This is such an old, tired take.
  - bayesian_horse 6y ago
    No, you really can't do that easily and sometimes at all with "fiat". Which is why "money laundering" is a thing. Or drug cartels having the problem to stash or move hundreds of thousands of small dollar bills over North and South American borders. A somewhat trustworthy state having control over or transparency into money transfers generally is a very good thing. If your government isn't trustworthy enough, you have bigger problems than the currency.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - toyg 6y ago
    When it comes to truth, old != bad. The oldest profession is still around, for example, because demand will always be there.
panarky 6y ago
That's always the problem with freedom, it works for good guys and bad guys alike.

TomVDB 6y ago

There are industries with less social utility than Bitcoin?

paulgb 6y ago

> However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, [...] then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. The amount of energy used in equilibrium in Bitcoin mining is proportional to the price of Bitcoin (between halvings and holding the fraction of total mining costs spent on energy constant). If the price of Bitcoin rose enough that it had a 2TN market cap tomorrow, miners would have incentives to burn 3-4x more energy. I agree that transaction-based accounting is flawed, but it doesn’t make the problem go away.