You wanna burn your own house to the ground, your problem. You live in a flat? Now it’s bigger than you.
I’m optimistic about future tech and green energy and expect PV to solve greenhouse emissions. BTC is, by design, such that allowing it to succeed would lead to an arms race that has no upper bound — build a Dyson swarm, and the entire output of Sol gets spent fighting over who can find the right random numbers that hash in the right way, and it still doesn’t end.
(Of course, civilization doesn’t last that long, because the moment energy is priced in BTC it becomes worthwhile doing anything physically possible to get a 51% double-spend attack).
It's definitively a fact. BSC provides the same pyramid schemes and pump and dump cryptocurrencies for a fraction of the power consumption of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin burns resources for a handful people. A tremendous amount. It doesn't provide jobs in comparison to snapchat and other services.
And independent of snapchat: feel free to see snapchat as a resource waste but that doesn't make bitcoins better.
I think Snapchat is wasteful. It clearly has no beneficial use to society. But you think it is beneficial somehow.
Enumerating every use of electricity like this, and convening some panel to judge and decide if they should be allowed or not will never get us anywhere good. Meanwhile you and I if we are both reasonable can agree that both services should pay the full cost of their energy use.
Edit: I see by the downvotes that people disagree. So how is it a settled fact that Bitcoin is more wasteful than e.g. Snapchat? Yes I know Bitcoin burns electricity to secure its network. But clearly people find that useful and value that enough to actually spend the money to do that. What should be the rules for deciding what should and shouldn’t be allowed?