The point is when we're looking at comparative energy use, you can't just point at the whole banking system and compare it to Bitcoin, as if it's an apples to apples comparison, because the banking system provides an embarassment of services that Bitcoin does not.
> The strawman is disingenuous and shows how little you understand the topic.
There's no strawman here and if anything this shows how little you understood the thread you're replying to.
(Edit: fixed a copy/paste screwup)
[1] https://www.coindesk.com/what-bloomberg-gets-wrong-about-bit...
Sorry, this does not make BTC a bank.
As they continue to add more features, we will see what BTC will become and how it may be useful. But comparing it to a bank is silly.
I agree, Bitcoin is not a bank, that makes comparing its energy footprint to the banking system totally pointless.
this is true. bitcoin should be compared with everything required to run or "back" USD. which is a lot more energy use than most states on this planet
I don't think that's true. Most companies providing services on top of bitcoin control the private keys, so they could do the same thing. You give up absolute control of your money to get access to a service, except now creating the money is terrible for the environment and consumes as much power as a small European nation.
The benefit of BTC is that when your bank mismanages their assets a la 2008, resulting in a bank run, you know your assets are safe instead of having to rely on the Fed to bail out your bank. Your money is in your control, not in the control of someone else.
If you don't want that, it's easy -- just don't buy bitcoin. But don't discredit it by comparing it to a credit card which it is not trying to be. The strawman is disingenuous and shows how little you understand the topic.