[root_axis]

The problem with bitcoin isn't merely that it uses a ton of energy, it's that the amount of energy consumed has practically zero relationship to the utility provided by the network. Yes, Visa uses a lot of energy, it's also a global payment platform servicing hundreds of millions of transactions per day, the amount of energy used correlates with the amount of useful work provided by the network, this is not true of PoW which consumes increasingly more and more energy while facilitating the same rate of transactions. Unlike every other technology in history, when advancements in efficiency are made, bitcoin power consumption actually increases because an increase in efficiency means more miner profit if similar rates of power are consumed, except this also has the side effect of increasing mining difficulty, thus making the entire network more energy hungry overall. Bitcoin is wasteful in a manner that is unique compared to other technology.

[gruez]

>bitcoin power consumption actually increases because an increase in efficiency means more money if similar rates of power are consumed, except this also has the side effect of increasing mining difficulty, thus making the entire network more energy hungry overall

well not really, the amount of bitcoin to be mined is fixed (and actually drops in the long term), so the amount of money that is up for grabs should stay the same unless the price changes. Therefore it's more reasonable to say that the increase is power consumption is fueled by the increase in price, not because of increase in efficiency.

[root_axis]

Price is one factor, but ultimately the actual price is secondary to the fact that miners are incentivized to hash as much as possible because more hashes per kWh means more earnings, regardless of the actual price, yet this increase in hashes per kWh doesn't actually provide more utility for the network.

[627467]

Only if miners paid their costs in BTC which they don't (yet).