Why does every discussion about Bitcoin's environmental impact reduce to "it uses a lot of electricity therefore it should be stopped".

We're not going to shut down entire sectors of the economy because of their environmental impact. People are going to innovate and invest in alternative sources of energy because it is becoming profitable to do so. The solution is hardly ever "just stop doing it", it's "how can we do this better".

Crypto is hardly a "sector of the economy". It's main utility right now is lining the pockets of a few speculators.

Traditional centralized ledgering systems do everything crypto does better and with a fraction of the energy use. It also gives governments tools to combat inflation/deflation and manage counterparty risks within the system.

Crypto is a neat idea, but in the end it doesn't really solve anything, and instead only introduces a lot of unnecessary problems.

It pains me to see how someone could see no value in having a medium of exchange outside of any government currency control. One of my ex-coworkers had his family's fortune wiped out twice in Argentina due to government seizure and hyperinflation before they fled to Canada.

There are few sectors of the economy whose entire model depends fundamentally on huge energy consumption: Bitcoin's Proof of Work depends entirely on wasting huge amounts of electricity as assurance that transactions are verified. If mining became more power efficient, the algorithm would be changed to bring it back to where it is today.

It has been "done better" in 2013 or so when the first FBA system where created as an direct answer to bitcoins expected future environmental impact and scalability problems.

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27596590

Instead of watching that video, perhaps watch it on photonic induction's channel, seeing as he's the creator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJOX0c60wQE