I agree with this but it's even worse than that.
Estimates on Bitcoin energy usage put it at over 1TW now. I believe it was comparable to the energy consumption of Argentina.
Advocates will defend this by saying most energy usage is renewable. This conjures the image of someone with a bunch of solar panels but the reality is that it's primarily hydro power because that's the cheapest. Thing is, in regions with cheap hydro power, the miners can use so much power they end up making power more expensive for everyone.
I'd be more OK with this if crypto in fact solved a problem for most people. We should start by stopping calling them "currencies". They're not. They're assets. They lack all the useful properties of a currency (eg being massively deflationary)
The only thing cryptos really do is allow a temporary medium of exchange for traditional currencies. Some uses of this are entirely legitimate (eg escaping capital controls in certain currencies). Some are not (ie all the illegal usages).
I really wonder what happens to Bitcoin (or any PoW coin) when it no longer becomes economical to mine new coins. Does all the computing power just move on to the next coin? If so, won't this make the network vulnerable to attack? What is the incentive for people to contribute computing power without the prospect of economical new coins?
Estimates on Bitcoin energy usage put it at over 1TW now. I believe it was comparable to the energy consumption of Argentina.
Advocates will defend this by saying most energy usage is renewable. This conjures the image of someone with a bunch of solar panels but the reality is that it's primarily hydro power because that's the cheapest. Thing is, in regions with cheap hydro power, the miners can use so much power they end up making power more expensive for everyone.
I'd be more OK with this if crypto in fact solved a problem for most people. We should start by stopping calling them "currencies". They're not. They're assets. They lack all the useful properties of a currency (eg being massively deflationary)
The only thing cryptos really do is allow a temporary medium of exchange for traditional currencies. Some uses of this are entirely legitimate (eg escaping capital controls in certain currencies). Some are not (ie all the illegal usages).
I really wonder what happens to Bitcoin (or any PoW coin) when it no longer becomes economical to mine new coins. Does all the computing power just move on to the next coin? If so, won't this make the network vulnerable to attack? What is the incentive for people to contribute computing power without the prospect of economical new coins?