You could say this about mining any other commodity. Modern mining is literally converting fuel into some metal or mineral.
For instance: There's only a finite amount of gold, and until recently (electronics), it had no real applications aside from looking nice. Yet gold has been mined for millennia, historically with slaves (sadly this is still the case in parts of the world) and now with machines. The economic use stems from this, and as gold has always been sort-after, it's desire (value) probably won't change anytime soon. While you can't wear bitcoin, I don't see it disappearing either.
Of course you would, this is the same reason ASICs have come onto the market.
I'd say the inefficiency is one of the smartest moves in the design of Bitcoin. Not only does it counter Moores law, it also provides a scarcity; the more bitcoins that are mined (so there must be a demand for them), the harder mining becomes (limiting supply) - Adding inflation into the mix.
Had they just dumped 21 million Bitcoins into the market, it would have never taken off, and it would have probably been written off as a Ponzi scheme.
While you may not like the social or environmental impact of Bitcoin, it is hard to deny there is some brilliance in its design (like how the coins become the product of their own transaction logs).
Agreed. And I see the same counterpoint being trotted out for a case against EV vehicles. "Cobolt mining bad!" but I suppose oil drilling and fracking isn't?
Following the methods of the paper I already see a huge flaw.
They calculated energy per coin using hashpower from 2016-2018, ignoring all mining and coins from 2009-2016. Basically cherry picking their data and ignoring all the coins that were minted with lower hash power.
Surely the current cost of mining is what’s relevant when comparing the two today. Are we also supposed to go back and calculate the energy use for all the gold that was mined centuries or millennia ago?
It's different because the block reward is very biased at the beginning. By 2016-07-09, 75% of ALL bitcoin that will ever exist has already been mined. I doubt that's the same for gold reserves on earth. Furthermore, mining serves a dual purpose of also securing transactions, so for a fair comparison, you'd also need to factor in the costs of securing gold for storage/transport.
For instance: There's only a finite amount of gold, and until recently (electronics), it had no real applications aside from looking nice. Yet gold has been mined for millennia, historically with slaves (sadly this is still the case in parts of the world) and now with machines. The economic use stems from this, and as gold has always been sort-after, it's desire (value) probably won't change anytime soon. While you can't wear bitcoin, I don't see it disappearing either.