Yes, the term backed is the important part. Bitcoin is the commodity, it is the bearer asset that needs no backing. It uses energy to mine, and one could argue that energy sets the floor price. But it doesn’t “back” it.
Discussion
Bitcoin doesn't require vast amounts of energy to be mined, strictly speaking. Time is a strict required, energy is a byproduct of competition and fair distribution between competitors.
Bitcoin would be mined at the same rate if Satoshi's CPU would've remained the only entity mining it.
Energy consumption relates to interest and thus distribution of newly issued supply (+ fees). If nobody but Satoshi would've ever been interested in producing valid blocks, Bitcoin's energy consumption would be basically zero. Yet all 21 million coins would still be mined at the same rate, with the last fractions of a coin issued in the year 2140.
And 37 sats per block mined in 2116
When you put it that way I start questioning how much I've been zapping on here.
Don't.
Money circulates, time flows. Enjoy the zapping, produce value, and sats will flow back to you.
Learning about and being close to Bitcoin is valuable in itself. You are way ahead of the curve, sending and receiving lightning transactions before 99% of the world.
Also, in terms of block reward, miners will still be compensated with plenty of sats via fees alone. A couple of sats block subsidy will probably be inconsequential in terms of purchasing power.
So what is the minimum amount of energy required
Theoretically the amount of energy to validate all the transactions plus one sha hash. (Possibly less than 1W hour).
But the theoretical answer is not useful. The actual answer is a question for markets not tech.
How close is the theoretical to reality? And how many hours to generate a Bitcoin? Markets will determine cost of energy and the value of Bitcoin. But not the amount of energy per coin. Which is?
Theoretical is light years away from reality.
Markets decide the energy per coin because energy per coin is a function of number of miners. More miners equals more energy but NOT more coins and NOT more transactions.
So it isn’t a fixed amount. I have not read much. I knew it was complex computing. And there was a competitive nature to the way it works. I think you confirmed a lot of that. But I think then, the energy efficiency is relevant to the argument of the cost of bitcoins, and are they detrimental to the planet. Thanks for the replies.
No the energy is not a bug it’s a feature. The coins cost energy to make b/c you cannot fake energy. They cost more energy when more people participate because then there are real market forces.
While there is no empirical proof bitcoin causes better allocation of resources(you’ll just have to make up you’re own mind) assuming it does, the energy savings from less misallocated resources vastly outweighs the energy spent mining bitcoin.