Proof that energy has been expended has no intrinsic value at all. If it did, we would not throw out burnt toast. But it is mere entropy.
If you have money you can get the energy (i.e. access to the battery) of someone or some thing.
Assuming you don't have access to the battery/money you probably would have to do some work (i.e. contribute to the battery) so that you can access the big battery/monetary system and hence exchange your energy with the energy from someone else (i.e. You make shoes and I make shirts, at some point in time you need a shirt and me a pair of shoes, so we exchange our energy)
Point is: battery needs to be always at the most efficient capacity.
The argument in general is that Bitcoin mining is a better-than-nothing use for stranded energy, which does not then imply that it is a "battery". Quibbling over what qualifies as a battery is besides the point, I think.
What is the point of this hand-waving, meaning-erasing, semantic drift then?
The term "battery" has a definition, the term "store of value" has a definition too, a different one. It that what they're groping for? There is no need for this amateur-hour waffle.
I hear otherwise, actually
Actually, never mind. shees... Nerds. Go on. I deserve at least 6 downvotes for that. We have standards to maintain.
I'm not sure what you mean by "directly".
I feel like the argument of "Bitcoin is a battery" was never well done in the first place, since obviously batteries usually have to actually "store energy" and eventually "output energy" again. Something Bitcoin does not do.