In that case, write them a cheque?

If you don't want irreversible transactions, you don't want bitcoin.

My point is that claiming bitcoin is or isn't inefficient relative to other systems is nonsense. There's simply no comparable system that has the same guarantees as bitcoin, presently or throughout history.

As far as we know, the power cost of bitcoin may very well be the minimum required energy to run an irreversible proof-of-work distributed ledger. Maybe spending 1% of the world's energy to have this public infrastructure is actually a good deal? I really don't know.

> If you don't want irreversible transactions, you don't want bitcoin.

You brought it up as an upside.

> Maybe spending 1% of the world's energy to have this public infrastructure is actually a good deal?

That seems highly unlikely, especially at a time when we don't have negative externalities priced into that energy cost, and we know we're damaging the climate, and given that the only thing it really brings to the table is decentralisation. Which itself is firstly a bit of a sham (mining tends to centralise) and not even that important to the speculators.

If we can conclude it's nonsense to say that other systems are more efficient than BTC because other systems aren't proof of work distributed ledgers, maybe it's also nonsense to say that Teslas are more energy efficient than something with a 6 litre V12 engine, because they don't have a throaty growl or run on petrol.

Back in the world of actual use cases, we can probably put a ceiling on the value of circumventing AML laws without using a non-POW altcoin at well below BTC's current energy cost.

As such thus regulations will occur once normal folks can't get a refund for whatever broken trinket they purchase with Dogecoin or EROS or ETH or ETHC or BSV or Ripple or Stellar or, or do I need to continue?...

I'm off to play in the penny stock section of Yahoo... /s