> I thought that Bitcoin was particularly bad because block sizes were small, so there's a big incentive to mine and get mining fees.
No. Doesn't make sense.
Miners get rewarded for spending energy in all PoW coins. I don't think details such as block size matters. Dogecoin BTW as well has the 1MB block limit, their block time is just smaller (1 minute). However dogecoin has quite small amount of transactions compared to BTC, it is nowhere near its capacity limits yet.
KW per hashrate doesn't make much sense. At that point you're just comparing the efficiency for the available hardware for hashing function, ASICs that are designed to handle up to calculating SHA256 of up to 1MB of data versus scrypt ASICs.
Since that's the case, your statement of "of the very popular older coins only XRP is more efficient" falls apart as at the very least Litecoin would need to be at the exact same spot.
And if you are talking about per mined blocks, then you are putting the network difficulty into the picture and arguing a lower network difficulty (hence lower network hashrate) as a selling point isn't going to get you anywhere.
> Dogecoin has exactly the same energy spending incentives as Bitcoin.
While the incentives are the same, Dogecoin has roughly 7.4x lower energy requirements than Bitcoin currently, so accepting Dogecoin instead of Bitcoin is a tad less offensive.
This is like arguing we should switch from using cars currently on the road because they use energy, to cars currently standing in a garage, because we measured and clearly the parked cars use less energy than the cars on the road.
It's not even hyperbole, it's precisely equivalent and just as boneheaded as it sounds.
He should look at the one that uses 0.15% of bitcoin's while having a much more even distribution than Dogecoin (which had 20x block reward in its first year).
What does that mean ? That SpaceX sells LEO trips in dogecoin ? Or that the coffee machine takes dogecoin ?