[amptorn]

> There is a world of untapped energy that is only restricted by isolation. So you could entirely run bitcoin without increasing global energy output, if that makes sense.

No? Using previously untapped energy for Bitcoin, or for anything, does, in fact, increase global energy output.

[lowkey]

Increasing global energy output isn't a negative, provided that energy output is clean energy. In fact, developing our ability to produce and use energy is virtually synonymous with the development of human civilization.

[amptorn]

Yes, actually it is negative, due to the emissions and waste involved in setting up energy production in the first place. That negative has to be offset by using the energy to do something useful.

[lowkey]

> That negative has to be offset by using the energy to do something useful.

I think this is the real point you are trying to make. You don’t have an issue with the use of clean energy, provided you personally believe it is a useful use of that energy.

Bitcoin mining does use a lot of energy, on par, it turns out with all the world’s hairdryers or YouTube. Bitcoin mining is used to create security to safely store ~750 Billion in savings from individuals around the world. By contrast, to secure the dollars in your bank account it requires the world’s largest military as well as countless other carbon sources.[0] Mining gold cannot ever be done in a clean way and instead requires strip mining and polluting large bodies of water.

I choose to protect my wealth in Bitcoin, but I would never prevent you from storing yours in a bank account, even if that bank account is used to store US dollars that cost countless innocent lives over the past century. This isn’t about energy consumption. It is about your ability to decide for others what is or isn’t an approved store of wealth.

[0] https://www.news18.com/news/lifestyle/carbon-footprint-of-us...