smthg2say624

I think it's very unlikely to be profitable. 11B/1M incarcerated (from the article) means a gross product of 11k per person. I would argue that while that might be enough to sustain one prisoner's marginal cost to the system, it doea not look high enough to sustain fixed costs of the prison system.

Apologies, I meant that "for the same security level"/"for the same price of bitcoin" (these two have causal effects on the other), the amount of energy is constant, a global limit. We can asume the blocks are about full all the time.

If you leave the amount of transactions constant, and the price rises, the security of those transactions goes up (this might be too idealistic of a model, maybe wrong, but it's widely accepted basic microeconomics, not macro). If you leave out the speculation aspects of the price of bitcoin (say, in a couple of decades), a price increase means the market wanted to pay for more security (which is why the price rises). If the price goes down to say, $10, it's just the market signaling that bitcoin is not useful anymore.

I don't know about you, but I would like to have some backup next time Trudeau wants to freeze my accounts for protesting his measures. I'm not sure about 30k, or $10, probably right now something in the middle. But if that isn't a concern that bothers me, I would leave for a warmer authoritarian country, if there are any left.

I don't think the method is correct. There is no "energy cost for transaction" in Bitcoin, it's an energy cost per block. And it's a global constant, it doesn't make sense to say that you making 26 transactions a year will be worst for the environment than 1, or 0 for that case.