[rfd4sgmk8u]

Let me give you another perspective.

Some rich dude spends $300k on physical security. That hires 3 guys with guns that are at his side at all times. Suddenly, due to bad business decisions, rich dude has 500 people that want to see harm come to him. Those 3 guys are not going to cut it! He need to hire 300 guys (at least!) to protect him!

Arguments against energy usage are saying "You dont need to hire 300 guys! That is a waste!". Well, no, it is actually highly rational from the perspective of rich dude.

Energy is Security. How much is enough? When you can outspend your adversary.

[danShumway]

If you're arguing that the energy usage of cryptocurrencies are justified because they provide security, that's a different argument than that they're equivalent to the energy usage from games.

They're not, those security guards you're hiring have an outsized impact on the environment. Argue that the impact is justified if you want, but don't pretend it doesn't exist or that it's comparable to the energy output of much larger systems that service more people.

Cryptocurrencies on proof-of-work chains use a massive amount of energy; when you break down the energy-to-output, it dwarfs other systems like traditional gaming. The argument that cryptocurrency energy usage is the same as gaming usage really kind of flies out the window when you say things like "energy is security."

I mean, that's a pretty big difference between cryptocurrency and gaming. In gaming, we don't feel better about the ecosystem or more secure specifically because we're spending more energy, the energy is not security for us.