Funny you bring up the exponential video, a classic I haven't seen in a decade. But yes, I know it. Bitcoin's energy use isn't exponential towards infinity. As soon as it hits real world caps (lack of stranded energy, regulation, profitability ratio of miners in decline, difficulty automatically adjusts).

It seems we disagree overall on crypto, and that is fine. I'm going to selectively respond given the large amount of points you address.

As for the energy part, the technicals (energy mix, stranded energy, emissions) are a discussion on their own and reality on the ground is fast moving. I do not consider the issue resolved, I consider it smaller than projected.

In particular, your claim that the convenience and laziness of leaving electronics plugged in justifies wasting energy whilst using this same energy for sound money to be problematic, shows privilege.

Bitcoin is incredibly popular in Venezuela, Turkey, authoritarian nations with a rapidly inflating currency. One of very few ways for underprivileged citizens in said countries to protect/grow some of their wealth. In Africa, nodes are growing the most currently, as several projects aim to implement the same basic life raft.

Back home (developed nations), the youngest generations struggle to build up wealth. Never before in history have the young owned such small piece of the pie and never before were their debts so high. Middle class seems entirely out of reach for them. That's why it's not surprising that specifically they jump on crypto.

And lastly, even for those already in middle class not necessarily requiring crypto as a life raft, there's nothing wrong with them trying to build wealth, unless you also oppose to people investing in stock, real estate, etc.

You probably have the opinion that Bitcoin is not a solution for these people, but I want you to acknowledge that the problem it tries to solve and the macro backdrop that has led to its creation, is very much real. Bitcoin aims to be hard money, and hard money has humanitarian value infinitely larger than leaving your phone plugged in.

As for privacy, you're again being quite selective in your outrage. We know that almost anything able to connect humans can be used for good and bad. WhatsApp is end to end encrypted and proven to be used in terrorist attacks in Europe. Yet nobody has called for the ban of WhatsApp. You intentionally take the bad faith angle for privacy as if this feature was specifically designed to do unlawful things.

No, it is designed as part of the separation of state and money. A good faith goal, a humanitarian goal. Just like WhatsApp basically is designed for good, to allow billions of people to connect with each other.

Bitcoin is a store of value, yet a volatile one. That's because it's still early. It's likely to reach a 10T market cap. A maximalist would project 100T, but I'm not sold on that idea.

The more realistic projection, 10T, would not make it an existential threat to the existing financial system. It would just be digital gold. Bonds and derivatives are a few hundred times larger.

I'll end with a philosophical note. One you would wildly disagree with, but that's the point of a debate.

Our current system depends on perpetual growth. Maximize work, productivity, consumption, even population growth. Only endless growth keeps the system alive, and even barely so. It rapes the planet and cruelly still leads to enormous inequality.

As such, I don't consider it very much of a threat when money has no inflation or is deflationary. We should work less, consume less, and return to a more sane standard. This is going to happen anyway due to further automation.

The current system treats people like economic cannon fodder. If the current system has no regard for people, don't be surprised that people turn their back on it and seek a life raft or early exit.

Anyway, thanks for the debate, this was my last reply.