Your source does not show how the numbers on Bitcoin's energy use published by Digiconomist are "garbage" and "FUD". In fact, the energy use of these blockchain

Your source does not show how the numbers on Bitcoin's energy use published by Digiconomist are "garbage" and "FUD". In fact, the energy use of these blockchain networks is subject of multiple academic studies, like [1], [2] and [3] (just the top of a quick google). They all come to the same conclusion: these networks require mind-boggling amounts of electricity to operate by design. It is not garbage - it's an inherent fact of cryptocurrency. The article you linked instead makes the argument that the Bitcoin network will use less energy in the future, because there will be less coins issued for miners. This argument is easily refuted by that the risk of a 50% attack will always require defending the network with stupid large electricity use. The verifier incentives will just shift from mining proceeds to even more ridiculous transaction costs. [1]: https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index [2]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214629618301750 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22146... [3]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1877343517300015 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S18773...