I do not understand the argument, i have read it a lot in the last weeks. Does bitcoin not just incentivise the currently cheapest energy source? Which is still not renewable for most markets afaik.

Every use of power is incentivized to use the cheapest energy source. So the only way to solve CO2 climate effects is to make renewables be the cheapest.

Solar is getting cheaper following a learning curve, where every billion dollars spent makes it a few percent cheaper. It’s possible that an increase in power demand will get us to fully renewable energy faster. Solar competes well with coal for new capacity, but not for existing capacity. So growth in demand may cause a faster transition.

Renewable energy created during low usage times are the cheapest since otherwise its going to waste. Lots of dams china, hence lots of miners in china.

Eventually all markets will converge on renewable energy being the cheapest. It can be no other way — no consumable fuel will always beat consumable fuel in the long run. Bitcoin accelerates this transition process by providing something of value.

Yes, in the long run you are right. In the timeframe that matters, Bitcoin IS an ecological disaster. I don't understand why people ignore that just because they like the idea of crypto - which I do, too.

edit: well, actually of course I understand. But wouldn't it be honest to say "I care less about the environment than I care about my wealth" instead of claiming that Bitcoin will incentivise green energy?

>doesn’t matter how much energy is used

For machines that turn coal into waste heat for no benefit, I think it does.

It’s cool that you think there is no benefit. Bitcoin is an optional system that nobody is forced to use. I find a very large benefit and so do millions of others. Enjoy watching the depreciating fiat!

Luckily Bitcoin cannot depreciate.

If times get rough Bitfinex can just print a few billion USDT.