>Electricity is renewable.

That makes no sense. Electricity is almost always turned into some other energy form upon use, and once there, it's forever lost energy. This is basic physics. Even transmission loses energy. Electricity is not "renewable". That statement makes no sense.

Electricity can be generated by renewable resources, but used electricity usage ultimately becomes heat. That entropy increase cannot be undone without a larger expenditure of energy to recapture. Basic physics. It's lost.

Next, the majority of electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels. "Renewable" also has externalities: solar cells produce very toxic waste on construction and decommission, nuclear produces spent fuel that is highly radioactive for thousands of years, hydro requires massive cement outlays which has serious environmental costs, and even wind farms create a decent amount of waste on construction and decommission.

>there is more demand for bitcoin than supply.

This means nothing. There is more demand for nearly everything on the planet than supply. That does not mean doing inefficient things is suddenly wise.

>I usually agree with most of your analysis on economics, except on bitcoin.

Thanks. The problem is I won't come around, since BTC is one of the dumbest solutions economically created in modern times. Man spent millennia making errors on how to deal with money, currency, and macro economies, and BTC has skipped those painful millennia and recreated about the worst features in every aspect. It's what you'd expect from a programmer detached from economics and history.

It's deflationary, it cannot account for shocks, it's about the most volatile and speculative place to put money over the past decade, it's not useful as a currency due to volatility, it's not useful as a store of value since it's unpredictable, it allows incredible theft and loss (check what % of BTC has been stolen or lost over time - it's astounding), it's still subject to all sorts of bad actor problems, and on and on.

It's hacker cool, but economically absolutely retarded. There is no question about that.

You may have drank the kool-aid, but economists have not, and for good reason - they know how money, economies, and exchange works, and are aware of all the errors that mankind has grown out of that BTC blissfully embraces.

You should trust a money system created by a hacker as much as you'd trust a cryptosystem created by a painter. They're both as well designed.

Edit: after I wrote this, I googled to check if there's a good page on the terrible economics of BTC. As usual, Wikipedia did not disappoint. Check the section labeled "Views of Economists" [1] to see how many Nobel prize winning economists have called it basically crap. Not one in that list had a good thing to say on BTC.

This is the point where BTC zealots apply Dunning-Krueger and view themselves as economically wiser than this many real experts.

Edit 2: There is a neat poll of a decent chunk of the world's top economists, and I never looked there to see what they have been asked about BTC. There are hundreds (thousands?) of cool questions put to this panel, and quite often when I want a feel of how a large group of the world's top economists think on a topic, I search here to see if that topic is covered. Most importantly, when they all lean one way or another, it's a pretty solid sign that is the best knowledge mankind has on that econ topic.

I searched for bitcoin, found four topics, and ouch! I guess my understanding of econ and BTC was not far off. Check out these [2,3,4,5]. It's worse than even I guessed.

After this much expert evidence, I don't even have to question my understanding of it much more. The crappiness of BTC except for scams and bubbles is not much of a question any more.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_bitcoin#Views_of_...

[2] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/bitcoins/

[3] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/bitcoin-ii/

[4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/bitcoin/

[5] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/cryptocurrencies/