[Ajedi32]

Again, that's irrelevant to my point.

But, for the sake of argument: less efficient compared to what? Prior to Bitcoin, there weren't any other transaction mediums that offered the same capabilities and security properties that Bitcoin does.

Every technology has advantages and costs associated with it. You can't consider the costs in isolation and use that to claim the entire technology is a waste.

[root_axis]

> Again, that's irrelevant to my point.

I disagree that it's irrelevant.

> They just see Bitcoin as worthless, and therefore consider Bitcoin mining to be expending energy for nothing.

No, to reiterate, they see bitcoin mining as inherently wasteful because energy is burned without regard for useful work done. A centralized system can process multiple orders of magnitude more transactions than a PoW based one where more energy is only needed when more useful work (transactions) needs to be performed.

> less efficient compared to what?

To every other system for processing transactions that is not based on PoW, for example, the centralized banking system. Yes, I understand that those systems don't have all the same capabilities that a PoW system does, but the incumbent systems already work well without whatever added capabilities a PoW system provides and is also incidentally much more secure in practice compared to PoW based systems.

[jonnydubowsky]

>the incumbent systems already work well without whatever added capabilities a PoW system provides.

Would you consider Wells Fargo's employees setting up fake accounts on behalf of their customers and charging for them, an example of these systems "working well"? Blockchain alternatives have really only seen anything close to mass adoption in the last 3 to 4 years. These are emergent solutions which are already pivoting to hybrid versions that run on renewable energy (it is afterall a race to mine with the least cost possible) and while unproven, proof of stake gives a hint towards the ongoing work to mitigate the negative impact of the underlying resource consumption. It's important to be highly sceptical and rigourous in evaluating blockchain technologies, but could it be advantageous to do so with a longer timeline as the base for analysis? Many critics here seam to treat this as if the verdict were already in.

[root_axis]

> Would you consider Wells Fargo's employees setting up fake accounts on behalf of their customers and charging for them, an example of these systems "working well

I would consider that fraud; if fraud is our metric then blockchain based systems are definitively the loser.

> Blockchain alternatives have really only seen anything close to mass adoption in the last 3 to 4 years.

They haven't seen anything close to mass adaption ever and there is no foreseeable future where they will since they provide immense utility to a very tiny subsection of the population and have so far been demonstrably useless for anything else.

> These are emergent solutions which are already pivoting to hybrid versions that run on renewable energy (it is afterall a race to mine with the least cost possible) and while unproven, proof of stake gives a hint towards the ongoing work to mitigate the negative impact of the underlying resource consumption

Unfortunately the stewards of the blockchain ecosystem have squandered all credibility with regard to unproven solutions because there is just too much grandiosity compared with what has actually been produced.

> but could it be advantageous to do so with a longer timeline as the base for analysis? Many critics here seam to treat this as if the verdict were already in..

I don't think it matters; if anyone discovers a generally useful function for blockchain tokens or a way to sustain the network without an inherently slow and wasteful PoW system then the critics will look like idiots and they'll have no defense because something actually useful needs no defense, it's utility is apparent in its widespread adoption.

[Ajedi32]

Apples to oranges. The existence of traditional banking systems does not negate the demand for alternative systems with properties that traditional banking is incapable of providing.

You're, of course, free to ignore Bitcoin if those properties don't appeal to you. But the fact that you don't see value in them doesn't change the fact that others do, and if those people choose to expend their resources maintaining that system then that's, frankly, none of your business.

If the cost of maintaining the system reaches a point where it outweighs the value it generates, then and only then will people choose to stop expending their resources to maintain it. That's why your concerns about efficiency are irrelevant to my point; no matter how inefficient _you_ might think the system is, it's obviously still generating enough value to sustain itself otherwise it would cease to exist.

[root_axis]

>Apples to oranges. The existence of traditional banking systems does not negate the demand for alternative systems with properties that traditional banking is incapable of providing.

I never argued this, what I'm saying is that it's fallacious to suggest that incumbent systems are not comparable to bitcoin, they are, because they compete to replace those systems in their feature-sets and are marketed as such by the stewards of these blockchain projects. Your reasoning is akin to suggesting that a Tesla can't be compared to a Hummer because it does not support the capability running on liquid fuel which has desirable properties such as high energy density and rapid refueling when compared to lithium batteries. Obviously they are not the same thing, but fuel density can be likened to decentralization in that it doesn't make a difference to the vast majority of people one way or the other as long as they can reliably get form point A to point B... except one vehicle fills the air with poison as a necessary byproduct of operation and the other does not which is clearly preferable if you don't care about fuel density (decentralization).

> no matter how inefficient _you_ might think the system is

It has nothing to do with what I think, the inefficiency is an objective fact and clearly demonstrable when you look at the numbers, your only argument seems to be "yes, one is more efficient than the other, but don't think about that because decentralization outweighs everything else"

> it's obviously still generating enough value to sustain itself otherwise it would cease to exist.

That's a tautology, "it exists so the prerequisite conditions for it to exist are obviously fulfilled". Just simply existing isn't a counterargument to criticism of waste.

[Ajedi32]

> it doesn't make a difference to the vast majority of people one way or the other

Probably true. But for some people it _does_ make a big difference, and those are the people who will use and support Bitcoin as an alternative medium of payment. Again, if there was no demand for Bitcoin, it wouldn't exist.

> Just simply existing isn't a counterargument to criticism of waste.

It is though, because unless you're arguing the "waste" in this case is an externality (which it's not; miners are paying these costs out of their own pockets), Bitcoin's continued existence proves that it's generating enough value to sustain itself; even despite it having to compete with traditional banking systems.

Using your own analogy, what you're doing is akin to arguing that Tesla is a waste because cheaper electric cars exist that can get you from point a to point b just as well. (Those cars take less resources to create, therefore the more expensive Teslas are "a waste of resources".) That argument would be flawed for the same reason: you don't get to impose your definition of value on everyone else. The people buying Tesla cars obviously see some value in them beyond their competitors. If they didn't, Tesla would cease to exist. Tesla's continued existence proves their cars generate enough value for enough people to be worth the additional cost. In other words, it's not a waste.