I’ve never understood the take that a crypto network “doesn’t provide value”. Keeping the network secure isn’t valuable? So whose paying for all the energy exactly? How long until they’re bled dry?
The energie consumed only keeps stuff ON the chain secure but we do not just use the chain.
You do not just give someone else a bitcoin without anything in return. As soon as anything ofchain is part of the equation, its no longer working. NO power consumption makes sure that you get whatever you bought with your bitcoin.
Its a lie.
And pls don't mention smart contracts, they are as shitty as everything else. It doesn't make sense to block capital for exchange as it only shifts the problem.
Keeping the network secure has the same value as you apply to the network. If you're a Bitcoin maximalist this is infinite. If you're absolutely opposed to it it's zero. For most people it's somewhere in between. We can't pressupose that the energy expenditure is valuable because it is functionally necessary to the network.
> So whose paying for all the energy exactly? How long until they’re bled dry?
This is sort of like saying, "if gambling isn't valuable, where is the money coming from?" It's an activity some people want to engage in, and in the interests of liberty and self determination they should be able to do so. But when it has negative externalities of a severity that can't be ignored, something has to give and it had to be curbed to the point we reach a tolerable balance.
To be frank, Bitcoin hasn't demonstrated that it has deeper value than being a speculative financial asset. We've got a lot of speculative financial assets, most of them don't cost 2% of our energy expenditure in environmental externality.
Relative to the amount of consumed energy? Not, not at all... Bitcoin is extremely exceptionally very inefficient for what it is.