that would be fine logic if we had unlimited clean energy
unfortunately as its supply is limited... it being consumed for useless work means it can't be used for useful work, and as a result dirty energy is being generated for that instead
unfortunately as its supply is limited... it being consumed for useless work means it can't be used for useful work, and as a result dirty energy is being generated for that instead
none of which require burning hundreds of barrels of oil a day calculating quadrillions of sha1 hashes to keep their value from collapsing
and if you don't want to physically hold them then there's ETFs for that
Bitcoin would still compete for other things which are much more critical toost people on our planet.
Things like a storage battery. Or melting aluminum or other ors.
Or melting aluminum or other ors - this doesn't work because the load is extremely fickle. You have to be able to turn on/off easily and frequently.
other things can certainly come along and compete for the power. Its not like bitcoin mining isn't price bound. It always seeks the cheapest energy regardless of location
We are in such a bad place from a co2 point of view, if my examples don't work, we need to incentive to find better things.
Bitcoin is not better. It probably still consumes more wasted than just keep burning it.
After all the mining itself needs cooling (ac), Asics miners and local infrastructure (a gas engine)