Isn't the root issue that money itself is an "inefficient" allocation mechanism for scarce resources? The theoretical economics idea seems to be that it's some

Isn't the root issue that money itself is an "inefficient" allocation mechanism for scarce resources? The theoretical economics idea seems to be that it's some sort of voting system. But it's a voting system in which I have a thousand times more votes than someone else. If a fairly well off person thinks that X is worth doing, they have an outsized say in whether we use energy on X. And probably, if X has anything to do with business or investment, this advantage accumulates. I agree with the article in principle as a result of the above argumentation but I'm still not convinced that it leads us to a situation in which Bitcoin is somehow something special. You could make the same argument for essentially anything that has market demand. If you're going to have some central planning actor decide that Bitcoin is a waste of energy then I don't see how you can avoid the conclusion that me taking a holiday is, that plastic fidget spinners are, etc etc. You end up in the coronavirus 2020 "what is essential" situation really quickly. I sometimes wonder if there's a misgiving that Bitcoin is somehow set up to eventually use "all energy". This is incorrect, because the amount of mining that will occur is governed by transaction fees. Logically a person is never going to spend 100% of their wealth on simply transferring bitcoin from one place to another.