Replying to Graymalk

One of the things I don’t like about the energy argument is that it ignores how much energy the present system uses. That just gets brushed off. And arguably, the present system is less efficient because the energy is generated specifically to run it, whereas you can plop a mining facility in an area where energy is being generated for something else, but in excess and with that excess otherwise going to waste.
Avatar
macrominutes 2y ago 💬 1

That’s why I don’t make that argument in my hypothetical case against it.

I’m saying that after those inefficiencies are cleaned up by bitcoin, energy expenditure per capita will begin to follow the Henry Adams curve again.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

f9
Graymalk 2y ago 💬 1

I’d still present “and that’s true for everything else” as a counter.

Avatar
macrominutes 2y ago 💬 1

It’s not a great counter when the current system is clearly limiting the amount of energy expenditure per capita with all of its inefficiencies. Because capital allocation can’t be done effectively a lot of things that would otherwise be built, aren’t getting built because fiat puts productive capital in a wood chipper.

f9
Graymalk 2y ago

Well, my counters work for me. I guess you’ll have to come up with different ones for people who still believe that the energy expenditure is a deal breaker.