npoc

For example, that its precursor WW1 was orchestrated and that many of the people who died were lied to and died unnecessarily. There are also theories that Hitler did not order the death of jews (no evidence found) - that "gas chambers" were actually group delousing showers and most of the mass deaths that occured in the concentration camps were due to breakouts of typhus.

So have I, but they don't have any of my data.

In what way is energy usage in creating money a negative?

e.g.

If money took no energy to create, what would it be worth? What if you limited its effortless creation to just a few people?

What do you think about the enormous energy usage (far more than bitcoin) in mining gold?

Why is saving up negative?

You crucially missed the "halving" out of that model.

The block reward halving every 4 years means that in 3 halvings (8-12 years), miners will spend roughly the same on electricity at $1M/BTC as they do now at $125k/BTC.

Further, at historical rates of dollar devaluation, in a decade $1M will only be worth ~$500k today, and so really only roughly two halvings are required to even the electricity use between $125k/BTC and $1M/BTC

Why would anyone accept a private key as payment? It's not very private if you gave it to me.

Too difficult to audit the total supply, and tail emission. Bitcoin is anonymous enough while remaining fully auditable (nobody secretly printing it out of thin air) and perfectly scarce.

If you think it's one of the least interesting technologies, then I suggest you don't understand the power of ideal scarcity in a liquid, digital asset

He's a guy who understands the fundamental attributes of money and economic value, and enough technical know-how to have confidence in Bitcoin's design

Financial experts (of whom many don't get bitcoin) understand finance.

My brain isn't capable of the mental gymnastics performed here.

It's a shame about the tail-emission and the difficulty in auditing the total supply

No money is more efficient than bitcoin.

decades

Shame about it's tail emission and poor supply audit-ability

My claims not only support my conclusion but they're also in the public domain.

The only story is your condescending description of my reply.

So again, as I said, please GFY.

I explained the evidence very clearly in my last answer. You're clearly not acting in good faith. You try and help people on here and this is what you get every time. GFY.