>Escrow accounts and merchant layers are in development

Right, so that means that Bitcoin is not providing many of the services the financial system provides now, so comparing its energy footprint to the existing financial system is pointless.

That's the point I was making. You can't say "Bitcoin uses X electricity and Finance uses Y, which is bigger, and so is worse" when Bitcoin doesn't provide the same services or service the same size of audience as existing financial systems do.

I actually agree with you that they're apples and oranges. But I also think it doesn't make any sense to complain about Bitcoin's energy usage as I see it as well worth the investment.

Needless to say, I think that in a world where we are trying to become (as a general rule) more power-efficient in order to combat CO2 emissions, that's not the case. Adding whole new countries-worth of power use just for some new financial geekery really doesn't seem worth it.

But I'm glad we agree the comparison with the existing system is a silly one.

It's not just financial geekery, it's a complete re-configuring of our society including the dissolution of the state. Combating the eco destruction wrought by entities like the US government is a big piece of the puzzle.

I don't see the dissolution of the state happening due to cryptocurrency, nor would I welcome it.

(further, adding a new mid-sized country to the energy map is not a great way to go about righting ecological wrongs.)

I do see the dissolution of the state as the end game for crypto, which also happens to align with my philosophy.