Yes this discussion has happened hundreds of times on HN at this point.

> "Bitcoin uses too much energy[1]"

> "It's only using surplus energy which would go to waste anyway[2][3]"

> "But it still has an environmental impact [4]"

I guess I'm just tired of seeing the same things repeated on every single thread about Bitcoin. When I saw a lazy comment like OPs, I overreacted, sorry.

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56012952#:~:text=Cambrid.... [2] https://www.coindesk.com/the-last-word-on-bitcoins-energy-co... [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-in-the-wilderness-11553... [4] https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/05/bitcoin-btc-surge-renews-wor....

Your articles don't support your stance. I work with people who handle surplus electricity with mobile mining operations -- they're few and far between.

The use of bitcoin, a speculative good, as a sink for electricity creates less pressure for grids to manage electricity production (especially as the acceptable spot price trends towards the commercial price of electricity). It also ignores the innovative ideas that are geographically bound like storing potential energy by pumping water into dams.

The idea that bitcoin only uses surplus energy is disprovable just by looking at the regularity of block completion. If it were dependent on an irregular source like surplus electricity, you wouldn't see that.