| Thanks for the perspective, I appreciate it. Although again, the article does not lead anyone to think Bitcoin causes deaths. That's a misreading of it. I got curious, of course. If my math and research is correct, it seems like Bitcoin uses 127 terawatt-hours per year globally [1], and the US does 38% of worldwide Bitcoin mining [2], for 48 TWh/yr. In comparison, total US energy usage is 4,019 TWh [3], so Bitcoin is 1.2%. In comparison, holiday lights use somewhere between 3.5 TWh [4] and 6.63 TWh [5] according to a couple estimates, which is 0.08%-0.16%, or about an order of magnitude less than Bitcoin. But I don't really see how any of this contradicts the narrative of the article. The article itself was pushing back on the narrative that Bitcoin mining in the US is insignificant and/or powered by renewables. It's clear that 1.2% is quite significant, and most of it is powered by fossil fuels, and it's raising electricity prices for people. Is this a good use of carbon, and of consumer finances? The article does quote people saying it ought to be considered an industry like any other, but of course that has to be balanced against the question of whether Bitcoin can be considered economically "productive" in any sense like other industries, or if it's merely a speculative asset with zero productive value at all. But in the end, the article isn't attempting to survey the entire landscape of Bitcoin. It's focusing on the fossil fuel consumption footprint in the US which is brand new over the past few years, and it seems to do a good job at raising awareness for that. I certainly hadn't been aware of that until now, and I'm glad I am. [1] https://www.forbes.com/advisor/investing/cryptocurrency/bitc... [2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/09/08/fact... [3] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-power-use-rise-20... [4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/12/20/the-energ... [5] https://mrelectric.com/blog/how-much-electricity-do-christma... |