Bitcoin resource consumption is bounded to demand for secure settlement - large, but not excessive. I would expect long-term Bitcoin resource consumption to correspond to less than 1% of human productive output (but probably more than 1% of power generation). How much of human productive capacity is spent on banking right now? Bitcoin will probably consume some fraction of that. It should be a net productivity win (assuming it sticks around).
It’s probably pretty close to optimal. Leaving aside the mischaracterizarion of “waste” (that’s been covered plenty of times), Bitcoin is economically unique in that it provides a guaranteed price floor on power consumption, allowing us to overcome the “bathtub curve”, distribution costs, and other problems associated with novel green energy sources.
Are you really incapable of understanding that bitcoin might not be a waste?
An unfathomable transfer of wealth from normal people to the rich is happening because of the Fed. How? The rich can borrow money from the Fed at near zero rates. They use that money to buy assets. Meanwhile, the government borrows money from the Fed at near zero rates. The government spends the money, inflating the circulating money supply. That causes the value of money to go down.
The rich can repay their loans to the Fed using money that is worth less than when they borrowed it. I.e., borrow $100M in 2021 dollars and repay $100M in cheap 2050 dollars.
This is turning America into a nation of renters, rather than a nation of homeowners.
It's also turning us into a nation of debtors, via the Federal debt, which will become overburdensome soon. We will either default, or the debt will be erased through hyperinflation, making the rich even richer again (as they get the money first and buy assets at the old prices).
Bitcoin fixes this.
And only bitcoin, or something almost exactly like it, can fix this.
The impoverishment of normal people via the banking system is exactly what the Jeffersons of the world were trying to prevent the Hamiltons of the world from doing.
Agree with parent, I think you might not understand what is going on.
At what point would you admit you are wrong? $100K/BTC? $1M/BTC? I will gladly accept that I got it wrong at $0/BTC, hell I’d go as low as $100/BTC. Who is going to be correct?
"Waste" is not disproven by "high price". "Waste" (in this context, at least) would be disproven by bitcoin fixing much of javert's second through fifth paragraphs. My money is on "waste", no matter what the price does.
Yeah see you don’t get it :-) one mans waste is another mans gold. Basically you don’t want to accept others value things differently than yourself, right?
If you "value things differently", that's fine. Some people value bitcoin; some value gold, some value Andy Warhol paintings. And that's fine. "It's differences of opinion that make horse races."
But javert laid out this grand vision of what bitcoin was going to do for us, and it was considerably more than "be a good investment" or "be something that people like". And he implied I was too stupid to understand it, which is... not cool. I understood exactly what he said the case for bitcoin was. I remain skeptical that it's going to achieve that, ever.
And if it doesn't, then... it's a waste in terms of the lofty goals that bitcoin proponents have stated, no matter how people valued it financially.