In theory, everyone involved with BTC should stop what they are doing. Obviously, no one will (including me). How can this be solved? Should one actually hope for a massive crash, just so the planet can be saved?
Nobody enjoys burning electricity to have a pathetically low transaction rate, but that burning ~100KWh per transaction is a rational choice over the extant financial system should tell you something about the latter. If it was possible to replace this wanton energy-burning with trusted third parties (who could be guaranteed to behave properly -- or be adequately punished if they misbehave) to process the same transactions, it'd have been done a while ago.
Bitcoin, with its proof-of-work/Merkle tree, exists solely because this problem cannot be currently solved. Perhaps blame that state of affairs a bit more than those who seek an exit from it?
This is fallacious because it assumes that the value is tied only to utility. Ebay rode the wave of the beanie baby bubble, it could be the miners in China are doing no different.
"Should one actually hope for a massive crash, just so the planet can be saved?"
Yes, and for many other reasons, rooted in the fact that especially since BTC is not really used as a currency, the effort is de-facto wasted and that we should likely be putting the energy to better use.
You know the about the Pacific Island, similar to Easter Island, that depleted all of their resources building massive stone heads?
Volume is probably due to the fact some people think of it as a 'store of value' , even though it's really just the opposite - a 100% purely speculative instrument, perhaps the most speculative thing one can possibly buy right now.
"a BTC stays a BTC forever, can not be stolen, does not degrade, can be stored easily"
You've very well illustrated the fundamental problem with Bitcoin: it's thought of as a technology, when really it's a financial instrument.
The 'storage' you've described is mechanical, technological - and has nothing to do with the concept of a financial store of value.
A good financial 'store of value' is somewhere you can park some money, and know that you can go back in 50 years (or some time frame) and it will still have value. Hopefully a little more.
BTC is extremely volatile, and because it's not backed by anything - it could go to 0 tomorrow. Probably not - but it could.
Think: will BTC be around in 100 years? Heck, in 10 years?
Maybe.
Will real-estate in London be worth at least something in 100 years? Almost assuredly.
Real-estate is generally a very good store of value though obviously it depends upon which regime that real-estate sits.
BTC is a very interesting thing, but it's not really a currency, and not really a store of value ... so then what is it?
"Real state in London in 100 years? Anybody's guess."
Ahh - but we can 'guess' - and given how we know the world works, there is a very high likelihood that London property will have value, and probably more than it does today.
BTC - there's a decent chance it could be worthless.
Though BTC does own the 'upper end of value spectrum' - i.e. investing in BTC could make you 1000x richer in 100 years - and London property will never do that - BTC also owns the lower end of the spectrum, i.e. with a range of probabilities at zero, or near zero. Meaning - not a very good store of value.
In fact - as a 'store of value' BTC can't even be remotely considered when there are so many better options.
Speculation? Sure. BTC is might be a good bet actually. Store of value? Bad bet.
With one small caveat: the world is in turmoil at the moment (as usual, more than usual, not sure?), with big events hitting the economy worldwide: climate change, AI, self-driving cars, automation, ... you name it.
What is the chance of any one of those events to nuke your "London Real State in 100 years" strategy? Low. The combined chance of all those forces? Not so low.
What is the chance that real state in London will be wiped out (as a store of value) and bitcoin will not, in 100 years? The balance is tipped on the side of London, but not so much as you would think.
The mistake in the argument is that BTC isn't everything, but a part of a much much larger financial flow of money.
Various QEs around propelled the fiat to the moon. Add to that various other money making legal and semi legal moves with, and having extra money, as a number, not a value, had to flow somewhere. So it did, one of the speculations being housing, another one Bitcoin, etc.
You don't hope for a "massive crash", but some form of taming the markets and removing liquidity should (we'll see how this will be played out) occur in the next 2-5 years.
At that point of time, Bitcoin, sadly, may be the first in the line of high beta toys to go out of the window as the rest scrape for the exit (BTC network is limited to around 7 TPS or therefore).
Meanwhile, buy the dip, to the moon, etc.
LPT: If you can't disengage that much on emotional level from it, at least hold your btc on an exchange that converts striaght to USD, and make sure you can put your order in asap when things go south.
?? Reg capture may sap an economy but I don't see them as an existential threat. A single "industry" consuming most energy could be a potential existential threat, on the other hand, if it diverts economies from being productive assets to doing something for its own sake.
Leaky oil pipelines, industrialized agriculture spraying under-researched poisons on their crops, factory farming of animals leading to anti-biotic resistant viruses, mining operations which destroy the land. Fractional reserve banking and predatory lending allow consumption in excess of production.
Hell, the state department spent taxpayer money to promote fracking to the rest of the world.
This is only possible because we allow so much concentration of money and power (and thus they can buy their way around the law and avoid paying for externalities). Concentration of capital is the root of all evil. Modern banking system is built to concentrate capital, and has been dangerously successful in the past century.
>Should one actually hope for a massive crash, just so the planet can be saved?
The only reason anyone would bring up BTC regarding climate change would be to distract from the harm caused by oil, gas, mining, and oceanic shipping companies.
There's limited effort in fighting these things. If you're choosing your fights intelligently, it's terrible to switch off to go kill BTC's electricity usage because it's a small part of the ongoing problem.
Just because it's not significant doesn't mean we have to forget about it. We can always tackle BTC's problem later.
