I didn't.
New financial instrument using more power than most countries. Thought you might have got that by now.
> Why is it more irresponsible than other technologies which use more energy than it?
Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery. But in general, the fact that it's a new financial instrument using more power than most countries, at a time when we have a global climate crisis brought on largely by our energy usage.
But you haven't justified why that is an irresponsible use.
> Nobody is making that argument. This is just whataboutery.
Yes, true, I guess you never claimed that the other ~99.4% of energy usage isn't actually less justified than Bitcoin. Sorry to imply otherwise.
Because it's just a financial instrument, and it uses more power than the Netherlands, and we have a climate crisis going on. I'm not sure what it is you don't see here.
Any new financial instrument that added a whole country to the energy map like that would be a bad thing.
It's not measly, it's enough for entire countries of many millions of people. Most countries in fact. That you seek to cast it as "measly" shows that you also are simply seeking to dismiss or whitewash, rather than take the issue seriously.
Who's talking about stopping all energy consumption?
> So, why is Bitcoin an irresponsible use and other technologies are a responsible use?
New financial instrument brought online during a climate crisis uses more power than most countries == irresponsible/malicious.
There, made that simple for you.
If you want to argue your opinion that such a thing is worthwhile given the background, that's a pretty steep hill to climb.