What maintains the value of fiat is not government coercive action (e.g., having an army that forces people to use currency). Instead, the value is dictated by how much the populace believes it is worth. So it's the general government actions to maintain the health of the economy, and none of that would disappear if the government were to decide not to use fiat.
Indeed, to the extent that you'd compare how much the government spends in a hypothetical world where it doesn't use fiat currency versus one that it does, it probably takes more resources in the first case (i.e., fiat currency is a net asset to the government, not a net cost).
Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.
First, the logic doesn’t work. Let “has fiat currency” be A, and “has a large army” be B. You’re asserting “If A then B; therefore if not A then not B”. This is a formal logic error called “denying the antecedent”, which means the argument is invalid.
(You also don’t support A well, but that’s a side point because your logical assertion doesn’t work).
Second, there are plenty of examples of rich fiat countries with small armies (Switzerland, 0.7% GDP defense spending) and non-fiat countries with massive army expenditures (Roman Empire, harder to calculate due to history and lower productivity, but at least 2.5% GDP and 80% of the entire government budget). The presence of both indicates that the form of currency a country uses is secondary to other intangible aspects when it comes to the formation and maintenance of large armies.
those are incorrect presumptions and therefore incorrect conclusion. A is "has fiat currency", B is "needs an army or other means to maintain fiat value".
of course army is not the only thing, but it's one of the things in many of the countries. whatever other things other countries have to assert fiat value - those too consume some energy-equivalent of resources. army is just the most obvious and easy to understand example.
and yes, there are also feedback loops, there is no strict causal relationship between the components of this system, which is yet another reason why you can't make these energy consumption comparisons without being intellectually dishonest.
The intellectually dishonest part is trying to shove as many extra costs onto the fiat currency side of the equation without counting them for cryptocurrency.
Comparing the energy cost per transaction is a simple, pairwise comparison. Even if all the world used bitcoin for currency, there is no reason to expect that things like banks, armies, and the entire financial ecosystem wouldn't also exist. Trying to make fiat currency account for all the latter costs is just trying to mask the fact that bitcoin is by design inefficient.
let's meet in the middle then? i don't shove as much as possible but you shove enough for comparison to be honest.
> Comparing the energy cost per transaction is a simple, pairwise comparison
it's simple and wrong. energy-efficient transactions isn't bitcoin's goal. this has already been mentioned, i suggest you re-read the thread.
> there is no reason to expect that things like banks, armies, and the entire financial ecosystem wouldn't also exist
who's expecting that? i'm honestly amazed by amount of strawman-ing happening in this discussion. didn't expect that on HN.
I agree! And the structure of the argument is fundamentally invalid.
> there is no need to do this dance of yours with logic and fallacies
... Oh, I guess we don't agree.
> it's really a truism
"I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly".
> you are trying to confuse people and/or push some agenda
Accusing those who disagree with you of pushing an "agenda" is both a bad argument and bad etiquette. Stop.
but you don't just disagree, you make convoluted invalid arguments. there is no logical fallacy in
> if maintaining fiat value requires spending resources then not having to maintain fiat value means there is no need to spend resources to maintain fiat value
it's indeed a case of:
> "I don't have an argument, but I believe it very strongly".
but on your part.
That's not "at least some chunk", that's the entire cost that you're trying to wedge in there.