Bitcoin’s energy usage isn’t a problem

Bitcoin has some arguably valid use cases like empowering online markets for drugs, porn, and illicit stuff. It is also an interesting way out for countries with a failed economic system, like Nigeria or Venezuela as explained in the article.

Outside of that, no. We have more efficient means of payment. And that means of payment is tied to a government that is democratically elected (for most of the biggest currencies, at least). If you are not happy with the government's economic policy, fix the government.

Proof of work is wasteful and inefficient. Regardless of scale, that's a problem.

We don't have oceans of free, sustainable energy available. Wasting 0.1% of global consumption (a figure which sounds small in comparison, but still represents a huge amount) when other solutions exist is irresponsible.

There is something very dishonest about saying that a protocol where a single electronic transaction takes more than a month's worth of electricity of a US household isn't a problem.

> That’s for a network with 100+ million estimated users.

User is such a wishy-washy term. I believe that number includes those who have a Bitcoin wallet and haven't touched it in years, perhaps because investing or saving is a form of use.

Facebook has nearly 3 billion active monthly users. https://www.statista.com/statistics/264810/number-of-monthly... and uses 5 TWh https://www.statista.com/statistics/580087/energy-use-of-fac... .

So, at least 30x the number of users, supported with 3-4% of the power.

Or, American Christmas lights account for 6 TWh - https://www.brainerddispatch.com/business/technology/4533463... - also with 100+ million estimated users.

Thus, it seems cherry-picking to say "From that list, Bitcoin’s energy usage is the closest to that of the cruise industry’s energy usage, but bitcoins are used by more people, and the network scales far better", when that list includes Facebook and Christmas lights, both used by more people and with better scaling.

Especially since cruise ships are notorious for how much pollution they generate. Eg, https://www.geekyexplorer.com/cruise-ship-pollution/ and https://en.nabu.de/topics/traffic/cruiseships.html .

So, the point seems to be that Bitcoin isn't quite as bad as one of the most polluting forms of travel? Great.

> If Bitcoin did indeed have serious energy scaling problems, it would eventually fail against competitors in the private marketplace by not offering enough utility for its energy consumption.

The "private marketplace" does not include externalized costs, like pollution.

How long is "eventually"? If the network effect is large then it may take a very long time. Therefore, the lack of failure to date is not the same as evidence that Bitcoin doesn't have serious energy scaling problems.

> we should also consider the details for how it uses energy and the types of energy it uses.

The key question is the amount of pollution generated, including CO2. Not "energy". If it were fossil-free, this wouldn't be an issue, IMO.

So, how long until BitCoin is fossil-free?

The author only says the amount of fossil-free sources is increasing.

> As a result, bitcoin miners seek out inefficiencies around the world where electricity is being underutilized and wasted.

Did you note the slight-of-hand? Earlier the author compared Bitcoin power use to world-wide power use. Now it switched to "where electricity is being underutilized and wasted", as if the electricity already existed, and would have been generated anyway.

I point this out because of stories like https://grist.org/technology/bitcoin-greenidge-seneca-lake-c... , where a fossil-fuel power plant switched to Bitcoin mining because there wasn't enough local power needs to be profitable.

If the plant were instead shut down, would it be "underutilized and wasted"?

Only to profit-seekers who want to extract every last cent, and let someone else pay for the damage once the approach eventually fails.