You're playing semantic games when efficient does not exclusively mean "waste-less" it means capable or effective, which is exactly what Bitcoin is, a very effe

You're playing semantic games when efficient does not exclusively mean "waste-less" it means capable or effective, which is exactly what Bitcoin is, a very effective way to consume energy on command. You're also arbitrarily calling Bitcoin wasteful. You could subjectively categorize any aspect of existing as wasteful or unnecessary. > The point is that bitcoin would use as much energy as possible as long as it is profitable regardless of fact it is over-produced or under-produced. And regardless if it is "clean" or not. It's hard to say that electricity is wasted when no one else is buying it and that's exactly the argument that the article discounts. Low cost and negative cost electricity (that's already produced!) cannot be wasted and consuming it through any means, as someone willing to purchase it, balances the operation of a grid. The fact that no one else is finding a profitable use is their problem and opportunity in a market. Bitcoin will use whatever energy people decide they wish to purchase to use it. It's not a magic energy vacuum. I can't help but imagine you'd be outlawing people to buy solar panels if they wanted to use that off-grid to do whatever you arbitrarily deem wasteful. The entire thrust of the article is about controlling and demonizing the economic decisions of free people in a market at the behest of political agendas. > It also would drive prices up, we already saw it with prices of GPUs/memory. Yes consumption of anything generally drives up prices. Should we ban PC video gaming because they also drive up prices of computer parts? Video games are wasteful too. We could be entertaining ourselves with card games or marbles. Printing money drives up prices too.