[Nursie]

> What makes its usage level irresponsible?

New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now.

> Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it?

Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. But in general, the fact that it's a new financial instrument using more power than most countries, at a time when we have a global climate crisis brought on largely by our energy usage.

[shawnz]

> New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now.

But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use.

> Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery.

Yes, true, I guess you never claimed that the other ~99.4% of energy usage isn't actually less justified than Bitcoin. Sorry to imply otherwise.

[Nursie]

> But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use.

Because it's just a financial instrument, and it uses more power than the Netherlands, and we have a climate crisis going on. I'm not sure what it is you don't see here.

Any new financial instrument that added a whole country to the energy map like that would be a bad thing.

[shawnz]

You are implying that's an obvious judgement but the wide ranges of opinions in the daily cryptocurrency threads on here should clearly show you that it is NOT an obvious judgement. Why are financial instruments not important enough to warrant a measly 0.6% of worldwide consumption?

[Nursie]

Such opinions on the cryptocurrency threads tend to come from biased/invested sources who want to either whitewash or ignore it, very few even try to justify it, just dismiss concerns.

It's not measly, it's enough for entire countries of many millions of people. Most countries in fact. That you seek to cast it as "measly" shows that you also are simply seeking to dismiss or whitewash, rather than take the issue seriously.