[dschuler]

The tweets you linked to link to another source [0], and are mostly paraphrased from that source, which makes the following argument:

"Does Bitcoin justify its energy usage? Does it add enough value? So far, the market says it does."

That doesn't "debunk" any argument about energy use, it only tries to justify it.

[0] https://www.lynalden.com/misconceptions-about-bitcoin/

[andreaorru]

Disingenuous. That's not the only argument that is being presented.

[dschuler]

There's some muddled thinking going on there. The source doesn't make the argument that Bitcoin isn't energy intensive. If that's an issue for you, you should re-evaluate your views on Bitcoin, but denying it doesn't change the fact.

Otherwise we're just arguing that "water isn't wet" and what the definition of "is" is.

[andreaorru]

I'm perplexed. I don't think we're looking at the same content. Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread but just the first 6 tweets?