> Countries have millions of people in them, which are doing many things with that energy. It illustrates the waste.

But Bitcoin is something that people are doing with energy in countries. It is 1/2000th of the average person's footprint.

Is doesn't seem reasonable to call, say, people flying around in airplanes doing something with energy while calling Bitcoin "waste".

You would have to show that bitcoin transactions are globally uniformly distributed for that claim to hold well.

The rest of you argument hinges on the idea that the value created by bitcoin on-chain transactions is equivalent to that of airplane usage (the fact that our current air plane usage is wasteful aside), an argument I won't get into without evidence-of-good-faith

I am simply pointing out that the usage of Bitcoin or something else is better assessed as comparison to global consumption. Trying to map energy usage per product/category to energy usage per country is not insightful and misleading, as it suggests the product/category is not part of the country's energy consumption.

I am not at all arguing that Bitcoin is useful, or that its energy consumption isn't excessive.

> (preemptive statement: I am simplifying ... don't waste your time not picking this please)

You admit that it's a strawman to say Bitcoin is meant to replace Visa.. but then why argue that?

Because one of the constantly shifting goal posts that the crypto community used a lot in the past is "payment method without third parties". So it is relevant to compare to Visa, to establish that Bitcoin utterly sucks in that regard, without 2nd, 3rd etc. layer solutions.

There is a lot of accusations of "straw manning" when people calmly point out that except as a gamble and to enable relatively small amount of criminal transactions, Bitcoin has as of now failed to do in anything of the many things its true believers want it to achieve.

I have actually been following the crypto space since the cypherpunk days (by reading archives early on because I'm too young to have been around since the true start) and without regret (okay, a little bit of regret :-) missed out on large gains by selling all my crypto early on. One of the more interesting projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Taler doesn't get enough hype because it doesn't make claims that make you feel like a badass outlaw, sticking it to the man and potentially avoiding taxes. I still hope it takes off because it would be an actual digital cash, privacy preserving while still allowing for societal important things like taxes to work.

> Bitcoin has as of now failed to do in anything of the many things its true believers want it to achieve.

It's already successful. First of all: simply by enabling new methods of civil disobedience and eliminating future opportunities for government overreach it is already working to strengthen our democracy. Second, people are actually using it today to escape oppressive currency controls in certain places like Argentina. And there is real potential for Bitcoin to act as an inflation hedge that is much more convenient than gold (we have yet to see the long-term price behaviour).

Can not withstand, sorry: Bitcoin is a store of value nowadays. If you want to compare it in an environmental-impact way then compare it e.g. against gold mining.

Bitcoin smoothly moves between store of value and next level of banking whenever fees rise to high to transact or a new tech which is totally gonna make it scale and be affordable for micropayments respectively.

As a store of value it is utterly unusable due to volatility. Like gold, another perennial favorite of a similar crowd.

Beeing a “perennial favorite of a crowd” seems like a good property for a store of value ;)

Depends on the crowd size and philosophy. The only true store of value is a diverse portfolio, anything below that you need to use your own priors and data to decide what kind of risk you take.

You don't have to mine to make a transaction with gold.