Yes that's wrong. Bitcoin can be trivially understood to be unnecessary, given the alternative proof-of-stake system, the alternative cash system, the alternati

Yes that's wrong. Bitcoin can be trivially understood to be unnecessary, given the alternative proof-of-stake system, the alternative cash system, the alternative online banking system, the e-cash systems that exist... It's less trivial to say that air travel can be trivially migrated to alternatives. In fact, I think you could make a good argument that some air travel is a net positive for the climate. The trick is knowing which part and whether you can get away with taking people's favorite toys away as a government (lots of people enjoy not traveling 3 weeks for a holiday on the other side of the globe). The only practical use that I can see for Bitcoin is that you don't need a bank yet can make donations. I can donate to sci-hub without signing up for a shady online wallet that operates in Kazakhstan and isn't impacted by sanctions against sci-hub in other countries. But if that's really all there is aside from the investment scheme (you can invest in, say, helium: move the amount of money that people invested in Bitcoin to the helium market and you get the same effect without the power consumption) then we should just find alternative solutions for donating to "good for everyone but unfortunately illegal" services like wikileaks and sci-hub.