[trog]

> A non biased article would've mentioned how much Bitcoin mining accounts for the total energy used in US. And that would've been compared to the energy used in other industries. Take videogames for example. Just that datum would've changed the whole narrative of the article. The article does mention something in passing about how other industries at least bring jobs. I guess that's a net positive then.

How would this be useful? Just comparing it to random things that also use electricity?

You need to do a like-for-like comparison. Bitcoin's ostensible purpose is as a currency, or some sort of financial trading instrument for speculation, so it should be compared to the energy efficiency in other financial systems.

It is, of course, woefully, embarrassingly inefficient when compared on energy use basis. The only thing that matters is: what does this energy inefficiency give you in return? The answer is 'decentralisation'.

As always, the question is about whether or not 'decentralisation' is useful, important, valuable, whatever. For most people, today, it simply is not, as evidence by the fact that absolutely nobody uses Bitcoin for any sort of practical transactional stuff.