Sorry for being confrontational before, I was upset but shouldn't have lashed out.

I will try to answer your points to the best of my ability.

> Even if you get it this energy from renewable resources these resources will still go into mining instead of going into homes or cars. I personally would go for a less energy taxing financial system, that doesn't burden the energy system as much.

Well, you are free to use whatever financial system you want, I'm fine with that.

Take into account that bitcoin users and miners are paying for that energy usage. They are competing for energy usage like everyone else, on a fair basis, in a relatively efficient market. You may disagree with their energy usage, like I disagree with other energy consumption activities which I will not mention, but we don't get to decide who or what uses energy, society in aggregate is supposed to decide that using price signals.

In other words, energy consumption/production is supposed to be an efficient market, and whoever has more utility for it (i.e. is willing to pay more) should get to use it (vs. activities which are not profitable/useful enough for society and its limited resources).

If you can make another cryptocurrency with the same pros/cons of bitcoin but with less energy usage, then by all means, incentivize people to use that. Since it will use less energy, users/miners will pay less for energy and therefore transactions will be more price competitive, which means it will win out vs bitcoin in the long term. But so far there is no such cryptocurrency. Other cryptocurrencies have other trade-offs, including less security guarantees.

> Yes, we also need regulations for those carbon based power generation facilities, which is besides the matter

It's not besides the matter, it's the whole matter. Those are the ones that are polluting, it's not bitcoin. Bitcoin couldn't care less how you generate electricity, it can use renewable energy just as easily as carbon-based energy. Do you want less carbon emissions? Tax carbon! Price carbon-based facilities out of the market (which incentivizes renewables production). It's not rocket science.

> From my experience, the KYC is only something that recently started. And only on certain exchanges is this really enforced. And afaik it's not done retroactively, something that does happen with current banks. KYC didn't exist for a long time.

That's not my experience at all, in fact it's the opposite on all those points! All the exchanges I've used have strict limits on how much you can buy/sell without doing KYC checks, which is enforced for all users (current and past), and they've had that for almost all their existence (7 years, at least). I can't explain why our experiences are so different.

Either way, those rules are being enforced today.

> Furthermore, due to the difficulty/power consumption of mining people will naturally swarm into pools which will eventually grow bigger, which in turn might result into schemes that could create incentives to pump. There are no regulations in place.

All sellers of all assets have incentives to pump, can you elaborate on how this is different?

> On top of that you can use your money however you've acquired it to buy tons and tons of graphics cards, and mine bitcoins and convert your money.

You will lose money buying graphics cards to mine bitcoins, believe me. I guess you mean bitcoin mining ASICs, so let's go with that.

Sure, you can theoretically launder money that way, but there are many other ways of laundering money which are less risky.

You see, ironically, laundering money by mining bitcoins will be really stupid since power usage will give you away to the authorities, should they be interested in that. It's trivial to monitor power usage, in fact this is exactly how they detect marijuana production in my country, which is also illegal.

No additional regulations are necessary, thank you very much. An old fashioned police investigation would be more than enough.

> With our current monetary system we have things in place. They are shit, and sometimes s corrupt, but at least they are there and we have something to work with.

That's probably the worst argument I've ever heard for anything. Hey, our genocidal government/spanish inquisition/polluting cars/whatever is shit and/or corrupt, but since it's here, let's continue living with it and not replace it altogether with something better?

> A subpar technical solution which bitcoin at this moment is.

Let me know when anyone comes up with something better, I am really genuinely interested (although other cryptocurrencies don't count because they have different, in my opinion worse, trade-offs).

> Is not going to solve anything of this, it's a fundamental human problem, and technology is not going to solve it, and in this case I think it's going to make matter worse. Bitcoin hasn't proven to be more transparant, more open or more efficient.

Bitcoin is not supposed to solve all problems. It does, however, create a permissionless, irreversible, decentralized, open ledger with a limited coin supply and relatively fast transactions (practically infinitely fast with the lightning network) and with unparallelled security guarantees. Nothing like this ever existed before and nothing else exists like this currently (although some other cryptocurrencies come close).

> I really would love it to work.

It already works, today (well, for 12 years and counting). It works for many people. Maybe not for you, but that's OK.

The more competition and more available options there are for valuable assets, the better.