[rlpb]

> The fact that nobody can simply say, "here is what Bitcoin does, this is why the energy consumption is justified" is a strong indictment against the supposed value that Bitcoin brings.

I argue the opposite in a separate comment. The fact that Bitcoin has retained and increased its market value, despite having being inflationary this entire time, demonstrates the value that it brings. I can't tell you where that value is, but if it weren't there, the market would collapse. And it hasn't.

Perhaps 10 years isn't enough for a speculation bubble to burst. But then, at what point would we say that there isn't a bubble? 50 years? 100 years? One might ask the same question about gold since we left the gold standard. Is indefinitely sustainable speculation a bubble at all? Or is that what we call a commodity?

[tomdell]

Bitcoin still doesn’t provide any significant value outside of black market purchases, though. The increase in value is due to an increase in hype and a lot of people hoping to get rich quick - not due to increased practical adoption. Governments aren’t going to let it replace currencies they can control - and to be honest, I’m not sure we’d want it to - somebody’s always in control, and I’d argue it’s better to at least know who they are (see any HN comments on “flat” organizations). It’s just a bunch of wasted energy to arbitrarily move money from one set of traders to another.

[rlpb]

> It’s just a bunch of wasted energy to arbitrarily move money from one set of traders to another.

If it's wasted energy, then it's wasted money. But traders don't have unlimited funds. They are somehow generating at least as much wealth as the value of the electricity that is being used.