Bitcoin wastes a lot of energy. I agree. It is basically a mechanism to turn energy into something analogous to money.
However, people do not generally live where there is a lot of potential to generate green energy. Wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear all generally work best far away from heavily populated areas (this is not always the case). Additionally, wind + solar are highly variable.
Per unit of energy renewable energy will always be more cost effective than fossil fuels in the long run, but there is a high fixed cost at present.
The more sources that can consume energy in remote areas the more incentives there are to build renewable energy sources.
Thus cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are a net positive for building green energy sources in the long term.
#TheyDidntDoTheMath
Did you?
Burden of proof is on you, bro.
I provided my thoughts in unpopular opinions. There’s no burden here at all.
Furthermore, I made an asymptotic limiting behavior argument (e.g., the variable cost is lowest for renewable sources), which quite literally is math https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymptotic_analysis
The variable cost effect of renewable is quite well known, thus there is no real need to cite things, but here is a recent article https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/22/green-power-now-cheaper-than-fossil-fuels-un-reports-show
I am trying to discuss a clearly unpopular opinion in the fediverse; and am opening to changing my views. Your comments have clearly been well liked by the community but do you think they serve to create a positive community atmosphere? Or should we all strive to live in our own echo chambers?
If you make a claim about something then the burden of proof is on you to support it.
You make several assumptions here with zero supporting data, e.g. “people do not generally live where there is a lot of potential to generate green energy”, “The more sources that can consume energy in remote areas the more incentives there are to build renewable energy sources.”.