> My primary source for the facts given are based upon this study by Cambridge university :

I need time to sit down and get into the weeds with this, which I cannot until the weekend at the earliest. But just upon a preliminary look it's not just focusing on Bitcoin, but the entire 'Cryptoasset' ecosystem, which is disingenious when you're pointing the finger solely at Bitcoin as the waste of energy you are making it out to be. What other cryptocrrencies operate on is not our responsibility be it PoW or PoS or a hybrid or whatever else exists out there now. My focus is on Bitcoin and nothing else.

> Secondary source is here:

His overview of PoW is highly biased, and the argument is moot, even if those numbers from Cambridge are correct, because even by his own admission: 39% is an impressive number that most Industries cannot match.

Fiat and all the ancillary systems to allow it to 'function' cannot even come close, and unlike Bitcoin bakks don't work after hours or on weekends, yet still relies on the same amount of energy consumption. This isn't 'what aboutism' it's comparing apples to apples and taking their figures at face value and contrasting it to the existing paradigm.

I will reiterate my point: Bitcoin (the network) does consume lots of energy, much of it renewable (the figures vary apparently), but it remains the cleanest most effective, secure and resilient network in existence.

And as I mentioned the enviormentalists amongst us are not satisfied with that figure: $10 million from Square is commendable but far too low to solve such an immense problem alone in the grand scheme of things, but us Bitcoiners are a resourceful bunch who can do great things with little to no money once we're determined, it's our real legacy. And now that we have institutional money coming in the billions on a dialy basis and the appreciation alone can and should spur on even more renewable energy sources. Tesla getting involved is a massive boon for many reasons.

Also his understanding of Bitcoin is admittedly shallow, he only focuses on layer 1's supposed 7tx/sec but negates that riht now you can use layer 2 (LN) and do order of magnitude more tx/sec in real time for little to no cost, but most are not willing to hear this as it goes against their narratives.

But, and I will admit: you need to understand that Bitcoin is not as agile as it once was now that it has matured, purposely so, and as an actual Free market it cannot force it's participants to adopt renewable energy, it can only incentivize it from competing Market forces and other market dynamics: which means this takes time. But ultimately, as I said before, I would be absolutely stunned if it doesn't break the 80% threshold; the panacea of it being 100% renewable or a failure is impossible in my opinion and no one should set that as the benchmark. But give it/us time, I personally would volunteer my services for free to set up and tie in the solar arrays for miners if given the opportunity because of what Bitcoin has given me already!

I would love the opportunity to teach what I learned to the youth as well. Try finding that level of commitment in any of the large monoliths in the fiat World. And that is the key difference, we are adopting a sort of Kaizen system not seen outside of international supply chains, much less in finance, to determine our collective course of action.

Also, Bitcoin is only ~12 years old: something to keep in mind when you make these criticisms. Go back to the creation of the original curries of the colonies which led to the first Central bank and the USD, and see how very un-credit worthy the US was after the Revolution. And that is the current super power with the World's reserve currency with it's American Century policies.