> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost. It's so easy to assert and so comfort

> Makes no sense. Numerous articles document Bitcoin's energy sources, which are often hydroelectric due to its low cost. It's so easy to assert and so comforting to believe, but is it true? Just in this thread alone there are two articles already, one from the Financial Times, one from ARS Technica, which say the opposite. And personally, it's hard for me to believe that people who are keen on maximizing profits in pretty much its purest form--cryptocurrencies are literally burning resources for money, directly--would not take the opportunity to take whatever energy source is available in order to convert the generated energy into money in their bank account or crypto wallet. At astronomically low efficiency, too. Because in proof of work, all calculations per block are entirely wasted... until the very last one where you managed to hit the right hash.