The OP makes a very valid point with satire which, in this case, is relevant.
Proof of work blockchain is horribly energy-inefficient. It's hard to justify it - on a number of grounds - as a solution for a large majority of legitimate use cases.
I hope you get my satire as well.
We should, in fact, consider phasing out coal power generation.
Which is what almost every OECD country has been doing for more than a decade: https://ukcop26.org/end-of-coal-in-sight-at-cop26/.
It seems you didn't get my point.
Outside of speculation and regulatory evasion, has there been a sufficient use-case for Bitcoin and other proof of work chains that justify the costs, inconvenience, and disruptive impacts that go along with it?
Attacking crypto because of PoW is a bit silly when there are other solutions that are way more efficient.
That's like attacking electricity because there are coal generators. My initial point.
I was explicitly clear that I was commenting on proof of work blockchains. Crypto has a whole host of other issues, but I agree that there are other blockchain/crypto-like solutions that fit - some - of the touted use cases (e.g., GNU Thaler for digital currencies and currency-backed transactions).
The issue, however, is that for good or bad, crypto is currently dominated by Bitcoin. The parent comment is relevant and meaningful in this context, and should not have been flagged.
Yes, because demand doesn't drive supply...
https://eurasianet.org/kazakhstan-energy-operator-cuts-crypt...
Regardless of one's position is on the underlying issue, that's off topic for HN. We're not here to repeat the same talking points over and over; that's the opposite of what we're here for.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...