[adh636]

People looking for a decentralized store of value and access to a form of banking and payments would not consider it a waste of resources at all. I think that is a very privileged position. I would recommend reading the work of Alex Gladstein, CSO of the Human Rights Foundation, for stories and data from all over the world from people living under corrupt or authoritarian government who consider this technology a lifeline. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the value Bitcoin can and does provide the world.

If you only squabble is proof of work, there are plenty of resources available detailing why proof of work is important to the fairness, security, and decentralization of the system. Incentives will ensure people working on or promoting any other blockchain will attack proof of work, because they know they can no longer compete with Bitcoin on security in a proof of work system, but that does not make it superior. I will not go into my personal feelings about proof of work vs proof of stake, but there is plenty of writing out there delving into the tradeoffs.

As someone who hangs their clothes on a drying line, and doesn't put Christmas lights up, I think those 2 uses of energy (which surpass the energy used for proof of work) are far more wasteful, but I am happy that the people who do value those activities are allowed to partake in them without demonization.

[CuriousCosmic]

I don't necessarily have a problem with Proof of Work, I do however take significant issue with Proof of Non Useful Work (aka common PoW). PoW was useful for being simple and dumb which made it easy to reason about.

If PoW communities are really seriously interested in losing the "bad for the environment" tag, they need to be putting significant financial effort and brain power towards developing Proof of Useful Work (PoUW) systems.