[jcranmer]

Yes, it would be fair. However, it is not a comparison that Bitcoin even comes close to winning (Bitcoin uses orders of magnitude more energy), so you instead see takes like "you forgot to account for the energy cost of aircraft carriers!" to try to make the comparison more favorable to Bitcoin.

[pelasaco]

no, but for sure you have to take in account the amount of buildings, air-conditioning, commuters, datacenters, branches, ATMs, bad written code, exchanges. Beside that, Bitcoin probably after the 21 million were mined, should drop the energy consumption (ok, ok, it will take almost 100 years to happen), but it means that in long term, bitcoin will be consuming much less energy than now. Probably impossible to compare apples x apples in that case, but we should at least try it.

[jcranmer]

> but for sure you have to take in account the amount of buildings, air-conditioning, commuters, datacenters, branches, ATMs, bad written code, exchanges.

You also have to do the same thing for Bitcoin if you want the comparison to remain fair. Bitcoin doesn't magically replace the entire financial industry, so you don't want to accidentally include the costs of the things it doesn't replace (such as the bank manager who's deciding whether or not to authorize a mortgage).

[pelasaco]

you are right, but this reduction like "bitcoin is useless because it uses more energy than $COUNTRY/$CITY" is IMO just click bait.

[35fbe7d3d5b9]

https://cbeci.org/cbeci/comparisons/

BTC uses more annual energy than the Netherlands. What did it accomplish when compared to the economic output of the Netherlands?