How could we forget!
The next time some no-coiner tries to lecture you on how much energy Bitcoin wastes, simply ask them how much it wastes. None of them actually know. They'll spout some nonsense like, "It uses as much energy as such-and-such country." Yeah? So what? That doesn't tell me how much energy Bitcoin is wasting, it tells me how much energy Bitcoin is using.
In order to understand how much energy Bitcoin is wasting (if any) one must, at the very least, have an estimate as to how much value the network gives to the world in the first place. This number must then be subtracted by the amount that Bitcoin actually uses. The surplus resultant could then be interpreted as waste.
The problem with parroting ESG propaganda is that it's complete nonsense. Do I believe Earth has a sustainability problem? Yes. Do I believe we should work together to reduce pollution? Of course. Do I think that Democrats and otherwise left-leaning politicians can efficiently accomplish such a task without exploiting the power that's been given to them? I'll give that outcome about a 0% chance of happening, give or take a rounding error.
At the end of the day the opinion of someone who knows nothing about Bitcoin and is just running around parroting ESG propaganda they heard from someone else is not only worthless, but less than worthless. Like all propaganda it is sticky-misinformation propagated through the channels of least resistance that replicates within certain ideological circles rent-free.
So basically the point I'm getting at is that when someone says that Bitcoin wastes energy they are almost guaranteed to shoot themselves in the foot and make the claim that 100% of the energy that BTC uses is wasteful, even though this is provably incorrect and makes no logical sense. Those who think that BTC wastes energy tend to have no idea what kind of value Bitcoin has, so that value is simply rounded down to zero with a, "It's not backed by anything," statement. Par for the course.
This kind of sentiment creates a very ironic trend because cryptocurrencies are measured in literal dollars; a value that anyone in the world can easily understand. Everyone can see that 1 BTC is valued at $37k today, and yet the sentiment that Bitcoin wastes energy clearly implies that it has a value of zero. What doubles this confusion is that Bitcoin actually does have a value of zero within a corruptionless political environment. To fully understand the value of Bitcoin one must have at least rudimentary knowledge of geopolitics, currency, corporations, government, economics, banking, securities, commodities, logistics, and handful of other topics. That's a tall order that simply cannot be filled for the average person.
Normally when we hear people talking about the halving event it is within the context of number-go-up. Lambos. Bull markets. Lowered supply. Yada yada yada. However, why are none of the environmentalists celebrating the halving event? After all, cutting the block reward incentive in half mathematically guarantees a lower incentive to mine Bitcoin. It guarantees lower energy usage. And yet all we hear is silence because again these people have no idea what they are talking about. Parrots can not engage in critical thinking. They simply mimic intelligence (kind of like AI and machine learning). Unfortunately the ones pulling the strings have ulterior motives.
Energy bills and hardware are paid for in dollars. Thus it is very easy to show that when Bitcoin price goes up in relation to our unit-of-account there's more financial incentive to mine it. If Greenpeace or any other entity is truly concerned about energy usage this is the vector that needs to be addressed. Ironically, if Bitcoin had the value that no-coiners assume it does ($0) then it would also consume zero energy as well. The only way to tame miners is to decrease their financial incentive to do the thing.
Some would wrongfully claim that we should be shorting Bitcoin to bring down the price, but this would not only be wrong but also financial suicide. Borrowing Bitcoin at interest doesn't hurt Bitcoin; it just helps people who have Bitcoin and want to earn some yield on it. Financially engaging with an asset does not give it less value; quite the opposite. That's just more users for the platform. In the long run those who short Bitcoin have always been financially decimated. Just ask FTX (who may be resuming operations in January, as crazy at that sounds).
ETH's move to proof-of-stake was a significant one. Has this code change made ETH superior to Bitcoin? Environmentalists would claim so because they are blinded by the one overpowering goal. ETH maximalists would also agree. However, the rest of us understand that ETH is likely even more centralized now than it was before. Every EVM derivative that was created in the wake of $200 operation fees is even more centralized than ETH. The optics are not looking good.
Point being that if any altcoin ever succeeded in creating a superior product to Bitcoin, then the market would inevitably reflect that fact. The value of BTC would go down, and less energy would automatically be allocated to it. Problem solved. The market may be stupid, wrong, and greedy on short timeframes, but tends to be a genius when it comes to longer periods. The market has been telling us for over a decade that Bitcoin has wildly exponential value, and it would be foolish to ignore that fact.
We see that no cryptocurrency is even trying to to be a better Bitcoin. Sure, they all claim to be decentralized, scalable, secure, fast, innovative, disruptive, and censorship resistant, but those are just nothing marketing words that once again are just regurgitated by parrots of a different nature. When it comes down to it open source tech cannot compete. It's like saying Los Angeles competes with New York city. It's complete nonsense that does not translate to reality. Much like going to the gym, the only thing that a cryptocurrency can compete with is itself. Self-improvement is the goal. This is not a zero-sum-game.
Bitcoin is currently breaking resistances and moving in an upward direction. Why? Because the service that it provides has value. Someone doesn't like that? Well tell them to go make something better, or even more ideally: fix the broken economy that allowed this to happen in the first place.
Cryptocurrency in general simply cannot exist within an environment of good and well-meaning actors. The fact that it not only exists but also has sustained exponential growth for over a decade can only mean one thing. Those with power in this world cannot necessarily be trusted. What a surprise that it is precisely a subset of the elite who decided to seed the notion that Bitcoin wastes energy within the political dichotomy. These narratives do not just pop up organically on accident.
I find this to be a somewhat comical attack vector to exploit because it guarantees that the other side is going to automatically reject what their political opponents are saying. Convincing the left that Bitcoin is bad will just make the right want to use it even more. That's actually not making very good progress. In fact it doesn't even seem to be a net positive considering the outcome.
If we actually want to build a better world then it would be foolish to assume that we can accomplish such a feat within the bounds of the current establishment. Want to focus on an even bigger polluter than crypto? Why not start with the military industrial complex and the big banks that fund it? It seems we have a tendency to focus on small problems while ignoring the elephants in the room. This is not an accident; the discussion is meticulously threaded this way by design.
