That's not just to secure the value of dollars, your comparison is meaningless. Also, reapply the thought experiment above - BTC is used by a handful of people, yet consumes more than countries of millions.
>That's not just to secure the value of dollars, your comparison is meaningless.
Yes the calculation is not complete, but it demonstrates that the other calculations are completely invalid too because it doesn't consider those factors either
> The question was what are the efficiencies per transaction.
Yes and the calculations are all completely invalid. Not sure what you are missing.
You need a whole infrastructure to power a transaction. That means an asset with value, a secure way to broadcast it, for other people to see it, etc. Running the infrastructure and securing it is absurdly expensive for the traditional system; they are even employing perhaps millions of people to run the worldwide network. The human cost is extreme but you are limiting the discussion to energy expended. Unless you consider all this how can you put the energy usage of BTC in context? This is especially true since a system like BTC, the energy used is not even proportional to the number of transactions that are processed. Extrapolations don't even consider that the mining reward is motivating miners but it will disappear completely in future - i.e. the energy is being used to build a system and distribute assets that can exist for endless years. All the logic is a joke
It's like saying it's cheaper to solve an equation by hand than to build software that can do it automatically. But doing it by hand requires human intervention, while that one-time cost of building the software can automate the work, be adapted for myriad usecases and run for the next 1000 years
The consequences of expending the energy to create and distribute this 'unit of account' is profound and incalculable, even if one wants to argue that a decentralised financial system with mass surveillance like BTC will have a negative impact on society