|
I feel you’re being disingenuous here. Of course I know that Bitcoin cannot be directly used for energy in a system where only BTC existed. But we don’t live in such a system. We live in a system where the scarcity of money is used as an analogue for the scarcity of energy. Funnily enough, you argue the case for BTC quite well. Money only works when it cannot be created, nor destroyed (sound familiar?), and anything else is essentially corruption/inefficiency (hence why in the 1920s, a dollar had the buying power of $100 today). You can use money as a representation for energy, using a simple exchange mechanism that allows us to represent our efforts in the form of an agreed standard that is ostensibly finite and scarce. We’re able to convert our efforts into a medium of exchange using an abstraction. BTC is actually a far better way of achieving this, as it is not as susceptible to corruption (particularly in developing economies), as well as its convenience, safety, transparency, and so on. But I think we are not being honest with ourselves here if we continue this debate, as it is not meaningful. You can either choose to see what I’m saying, or you can continue to believe in pure materialism - thats fine, but keep living in your cave where BTC cannot possibly represent a way to move energy from a place inaccessible to power lines, while I believe that it can, and drive around in my Ferrari (hypothetically, of course). |