Search on TFTC
Issue #511: Energy FUD priorities

Issue #511: Energy FUD priorities

Jun 24, 2019
Marty's Ƀent

Issue #511: Energy FUD priorities

We've spoken a lot about Bitcoin Energy FUD in this rag throughout the years. (In fact, we touched on it last week.) For some reason, Bitcoin and its Proof of Work consensus mechanism have drawn the ire of social justice warriors the world over. People seem to get irrationally mad that Bitcoin exists and that *gasp* it consumes energy to operate like most things on this planet. This irrational anger has always perplexed me, especially when you come to understand that Bitcoin's main sources of energy are renewables and, more increasingly, flared gas from oil and natural gas extraction sites that would have otherwise been wasted.

I don't know if it's because people simply think Bitcoin shouldn't exist and therefore should not consume energy. Or if people are just supremely confused as to how the free market for energy works (people buy energy sources at a certain price and then consume it). It always seems like Bitcoin gets treated unfairly. Especially in the face of studies like this one dropped by Brown University recently which found that the US War Machine has been consuming more dirty energy than nations like Sweden and Denmark year in and year out since we embarked on our Freedom tour Post-9/11.

You'd think people would get mad at a system perpetuating endless war that has destroyed countries, killed millions of innocent people, displaced tens of millions of others, and pushed the world into a very precarious situation in which every head of state and their mother seems to have their finger on the trigger in a global Mexican standoff. All while polluting our atmosphere with some of the dirtiest fossil fuels that we have to consume on this rock.

But no, people get irrationally mad at Bitcoin; a system that uses stranded renewables for 70%+ of its energy consumption and flared gas that would already be wasted to fill in the gaps. They get irrationally mad at a system that, if successful, would swing so much power back to individuals that they would be able to curb the US War Machine's carbon footprint by helping to defund it. A win-win-win all around as fewer people would die unnecessary deaths, fewer fossil fuels would be burned, and the soundest money the world has ever known would be ubiquitous. Giving people more power and autonomy over their own lives, which may even lead to more peaceful times!

I'm beginning to wonder if people really hate Bitcoin's energy consumption or if they just hate the fact that it completely turns their worldview on its head and should not exist for this reason. I have a strong feeling it's the latter because no rational being could look at the facts and decide that Bitcoin is the evil energy consumer in this scenario.

Final thought...

I feel naked writing this rag away from my desk.


Current Block Height

Current Mempool Size

Current Difficulty