B$ still looks ridiculous, let me explain.
* world electrical energy consumption: ~25000 TWh [1] * bitcoin energy consumption index: ~77 TWh [2]
Bitcoin today consumes as much as 0.3% of the total energy available on this planet.
That's fine, if half the world would use it and would do meaningful things with it.
What is it actually used for most visibly?
As a betting ground with galactic momentum, a technology promising to be the solution to everything, and just outrageous claims that only the bovine left to be excited about.
It's not that the algorithms and data structures are not cool, the certainly are - but we can do so much more today with technology than this.
[1] https://www.vgb.org/en/data_powergeneration.html?dfid=98054 [2] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
The amount of energy without detailing the source of energy is not a valid argument to support any argument you have about why it is being used. Move off of it, or criticize the sources in a more nuanced educated argument. It should be 100% renewable or part of a sustainable solution, not only will you get further in your argument by focusing on the market participants that actually are wasting industry, you will also be helping!
Is that "educated" enough for you?
Now, when electricity is generated, you can transmit it over those power grids, even to places that aren't right next to the dam. You can even store a limited amount for later use.
Ever kWh that gets redirected away from frivolities like BTC can go toward something that would otherwise be powered by fossil fuels.
I thought you were "educated" here? Please do keep up.
A) from some sources: Energy that wasn't going to be sent over those power lines
B) from other sources: a hedge against the loss
C) in some sources a combination of both A and B
If you get around to noticing, I have refrained from any snark with you and I wonder how long you will keep that up
Regarding A), there's no particular reason why that electricity can't be sent across power lines.
B) So what? Send it anyway, and replace 85-92% of the energy use.
Now let's talk about your unique points than the original person I replied to: places have had decades to send more power over power lines and they didn't. You tell me why that is. I assume there were financial reasons and related impracticalities. But admittedly I have never asked and only react to the reality that energy producers have been receptive to the additional use of their energy for the aforementioned reasons I listed. Their output hasn't changed and to them it is a more efficient use of it. Are they lying? Are they ignorant of alternatives? Just lazy even though their laziness would therefore predate crypto mining?
Either way mining on premise is an immediately applicable economic incentive that simply got you to notice that you didn't like it.
Best case scenario then is that it gets you into action to implement a solution nobody else noticed was applicable. Society might be getting somewhere because of you, that's so exciting.
Nonetheless, financial difficulties are not relevant. What is relevant is reducing the world's carbon footprint, and that needs to happen ASAP. I, personally, think it's more "exciting" that human civilization might survive another century than to keep track of the solution to some useless, financialized math problem. But, that's just me, I suppose.
Corroborate that with a news source that you happen to like.
Like I mentioned renewable or otherwise wasted energy. This is one of the otherwise wasted energy examples that is a sustainability solution right now, in comparison to wishful thinking.
the vast majority of bitcoin/crypto mining uses renewable or otherwise wasted energy and this is the only economical way to do it! you have been intentionally misinformed by the amount of energy used and not the source of energy used. It is completely a red herring to just read a headline about how little electricity a tiny country uses and that mining uses the same amount.
what? "wasted energy"? yeah a lot of energy is lost as it cannot be transported to commercial and residential areas economically. so miners set up processing at the source of the energy and use it. in fact, a lot of it actually reduces pollution creating the polar opposite of what you believe, in those circumstances it is a sustainability solution.
now aside from fighting me about your worldview, this is also an area to remain vigilant about! nation states can absolutely mine at a loss when they turn to competing for control of the cryptocurrency networks for geopolitical reasons. right now it is renewable.
but what about the hardware, the single purpose hardware and e-waste? there is a large trade of "obsolete" hardware, as it is economical to use for people with the cheapest power. this is also another specific area to be vigilant about, by making sure the infrastructure is in place to put that hardware and keep it active, instead of landfills.