>
When I actually held bitcoins back in 2012 I always made the comparison to the amount of energy needed to transport physical bills in armored cars, hire security guards, build giant vaults, printing presses, etc. Back then it seemed a reasonable comparison to makeWhen I saw such comparisons, I always countered with two points:
- One, energy expenditure on Bitcoin network grows superlinearly;
- Two, all the expenditure for trucks, vaults, presses, etc. and management for it is considered upkeep. It takes money from the pockets of people who would prefer to keep it. So these costs are ruthlessly optimized down to minimum. If printing or transporting bills could be made free, financial institutions would jump at it. Meanwhile, in Bitcoin, burning energy is a core part of securing the network, and it's being periodically adjusted towards more waste. If mining could be made free, the network would collapse.
These points paint a quite different trajectory over time for Bitcoin's energy use vs. fiat energy use. And it seems to pan out.