Hacker News Reader

Comment by panarky | Hacker News Reader

The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions.

However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric.

Bitcoin is the only asset with these properties, and it doesn't need many transactions to do what it does best.

If you find you're angry about Bitcoin's energy usage but you're not even more angry about the energy wasted by industries and technologies that have much less social utility, then maybe it's not the wasted energy that you're angry about after all.

View on HN

> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments

And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!

Let's not forget druglords, illegal arms dealers, hitmen...

Paging argument from 2010...

You would use Monero or physical cash for those activities.

Bitcoin is much easier to trace once you have a lead.

It's just a tradeoff between opsec and ease of use. Monero is harder to turn back into cash, precisely because it carries a worse reputation.

Note that my argument was pro btc - I can see underground demand sustaining its price in the long run.

Because you definitely can't do that with fiat...

This is such an old, tired take.

No, you really can't do that easily and sometimes at all with "fiat". Which is why "money laundering" is a thing. Or drug cartels having the problem to stash or move hundreds of thousands of small dollar bills over North and South American borders.

A somewhat trustworthy state having control over or transparency into money transfers generally is a very good thing. If your government isn't trustworthy enough, you have bigger problems than the currency.

When it comes to truth, old != bad. The oldest profession is still around, for example, because demand will always be there.

That's always the problem with freedom, it works for good guys and bad guys alike.

There are industries with less social utility than Bitcoin?

> However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, [...] then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric.

The amount of energy used in equilibrium in Bitcoin mining is proportional to the price of Bitcoin (between halvings and holding the fraction of total mining costs spent on energy constant). If the price of Bitcoin rose enough that it had a 2TN market cap tomorrow, miners would have incentives to burn 3-4x more energy.

I agree that transaction-based accounting is flawed, but it doesn’t make the problem go away.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com