Searching for less harmful sources of energy can be done at the same time as pointing out frivolous uses of energy.
They aren’t mutually exclusive.
They aren’t mutually exclusive.
Off the top of my head, the things I have seen people argue should be banned due to climate effects: - Eating meat - Plane travel - Cars - Only large 4WD's ( but not cars) - Clothes dryers - Bitcoin - AI - Computer games - Christmas lights - etc
Are videogames? Books? What about theater?
I painted my office lavender last year, was the industry that made that possible a frivolous use of energy?
What about eating beef? Certainly a hamburger is as frivolous as a frappucino, right?
Or, it could be that none of the above are frivolous at all...
Bitcoin needs to waste energy for security. If humanity manages to produce twice the energy, bitcoin needs to waste so much that the economic price of the energy to attack it is similar, so likely bitcoin would have to use twice as much energy to produce the same good.
On the other hand, if humanity were to produce twice as much energy, your frappucino would still take the same amount (or less if the machines get more efficient somehow!), and would maybe even become cheaper with the cheaper cost of electricity.
Adversarial proof of work is designed to not be able to become more efficient. It is designed to only operate in energy scarcity. Without PoW, creating a fusion reactor may mean energy is effectively free for everyone. With PoW, electricity must have a high enough cost that it deters attacking bitcoin, so anyone who owns bitcoin has a vested interest in wasting electricity until it is scarce and costs money again.
The amount of cryptocoin created by mining each day is fixed. The amount of electricity used to get it determines its distribution. The more electricity you use relative to your mining peers, the more you’ll get.
The incentive in this case is to use infinite energy unlike any other use case.