[brighton36]

It seems that your criticism is (justly) geared towards Bitcoiners, more so than Bitcoin. You should consider that extreme views on either side of this debate are absurd. Fortunately for all involved, Wall Street 'grown-ups' are moving into the space to apply a more mature and sustainable approach to the field. You will quickly see the Libertarians and 16-year-olds drowned by their peers as a result.

Regarding decentralized markets - you clearly have no substantial background in the space. They would be decentralized by escrowing value in the blockchain, instead of in the custody of a site operator. If Silk Road were a brand name, dark markets would be dead. I have no idea what dark markets are popular right now, but clearly they are popular : http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/daily-c...

Ahh, so the environmental cost of mining is what's got you bugged. That cost is borne by all actors involved in the system. They have every right to burn their energy, just like you do. But more specifically to your point, how much energy do the incumbent finance systems burn? If it's a drug-market transaction - it would be way over $8-$10 per transaction in terms of incarceration costs, import costs, etc.

If lightning network scales, that same $8-10 now secures the 4,000 TPS that your credit card system processes. And probably that $8-$10 is far more economical than the energy being burned by incumbent value routing systems.

Your brand of denialism is extreme. While it's certainly not entirely uncommon it's rapidly diminishing. Yours is a dying breed.