[kibwen]

The problem is not bitcoin's energy usage per se, the problem is that proof-of-work is a feedback loop where the more one person mines, the more everyone else needs to mine to keep up. In other words, the mere existence of proof-of-work puts a floor on the price of energy; in the presence of proof-of-work it is impossible for us as a society to ever have energy that is "too cheap to meter", because when the price of energy falls below the production price of bitcoin it economically incentivizes more miners. It's self-fulfilling conspicuous consumption for the electronic age.

In contrast, one person blow-drying their hair does not create a feedback loop of more people blow-drying their hair.

[SparkyMcUnicorn]

> the mere existence of proof-of-work puts a floor on the price of energy

I thought this was backwards, or maybe there's a balance between the two? I assumed that the price of energy acts as a soft floor for the price of bitcoin. Mining pauses when it's unprofitable, or the cost difference is eaten in speculation. The hash rate graphs appear to align with this.

[microtherion]

Yes, hash rates are sensitive to the price of energy. But the price of bitcoin is not inherently sensitive to the hash rate. The network adjusts the difficulty to ensure a constant production rate of bitcoin, so supply is not dependent on the hash rate, and miners do not buy bitcoin, so there is no reason for demand to be dependent on it.

So for any given bitcoin price, rational miners will hash until their cost to mine a bitcoin exceeds its price. If energy is cheap, miners will use more of it, if it's expensive, they will use less.

[zekrioca]

Don’t forget the mining efficiency improvements are reaching their limits, regardless if they keep creating new ASIC for it.