Bitcoins "power consumption" has two aspects - mining and processing transactions. The power consumption used for mining (or processing) is directly correlated to the relative earning potential - i.e. bitcoin price - power cost. Mining takes up the vast majority of the computation(s) and mining bitcoin should end somewhere between 2040 and 2050.
That is to say, it's self correcting. If the price of energy increases, there is less mining. Alternatively, the miners are also incentivized to find cheaper or develop cheaper alternatives; this spurs innovation.
If prices rise due to mining, innovation will take place and more energy will be developed.
There's nothing wrong with this mechanism, as it corrects itself. In 2050 when you can no longer mine bitcoin we will that have an abundance of cheap power. Which is the single greatest factor in reducing poverty.
Frankly, I think this comment is off base. So far there have been zero negative measurable impacts from power usage related to crypto.
This is a really weak argument. The better argument is we shouldn’t tell people
how to use energy they purchase and to tax consumption of it.
> innovation will take place and more energy will be developed.
This has way too many assumptions baked in. Increased demand will not guarantee a clean supply, nor does it guarantee technological progress in performance of efficiency.
That is to say, it's self correcting. If the price of energy increases, there is less mining. Alternatively, the miners are also incentivized to find cheaper or develop cheaper alternatives; this spurs innovation.
If prices rise due to mining, innovation will take place and more energy will be developed.
There's nothing wrong with this mechanism, as it corrects itself. In 2050 when you can no longer mine bitcoin we will that have an abundance of cheap power. Which is the single greatest factor in reducing poverty.
Frankly, I think this comment is off base. So far there have been zero negative measurable impacts from power usage related to crypto.