You made a very specific claim which you seem reluctant to back up so we can leave that there. If you want to discuss in good faith, please try not to shift the goalposts so much. For example, your reply suggests that with crypto there would have been no military or political actions that were environmentally damaging.

i don't see a lot of good faith in your arguments if you keep sticking to 4tx/sec and measuring bitcoin costs in per-transaction terms.

i'll repeat and lets see how much good faith you have: payment channels encapsulate potentially unlimited amount of transactions which completely refutes all your calculations.

> i don't see a lot of good faith in your arguments if you keep sticking to 4tx/sec and measuring bitcoin costs in per-transaction terms.

edit - I haven't, and my last comment contained nothing to do with per-transaction figures.

I've asked what basis you made your initial claim on, and provided several options where I've looked - transaction rate as currently happens with bitcoin, market cap and daily volume of transactions. None look even vaguely reasonable - so again, what was your initial claim calculated on? What measure were you using and where did you get your numbers? Have you actually tried to work it out?

> i'll repeat and lets see how much good faith you have: payment channels encapsulate potentially unlimited amount of transactions which completely refutes all your calculations.

We have current use, how does that actually compare to the current banking system you were saying uses more energy?