> easier/cheaper hashing actually doesn't work -- the yield curve in bitcoin mining is there for a reason, and without it, I doubt PoW would fly.

And yet there are numerous non-SHA256 proof-of-work systems that have worked (pun intended) just fine while having lower energy requirements.

> Reductio ad absurdum: If it doesn't remain dominant, then it has no use case, as it's a lousy investment instrument. If the above goes throw for bitcoin, then, a fortirori, the same reductio can also apply to any other PoW coin.

This presupposes that all PoW coins have the same properties - never mind that pretty much every cryptocurrency created since Bitcoin has had "do it faster and cheaper than Bitcoin" as an implicit if not explicit goal.

> And don't get me started on PoS -- it's literally just an MLM you can buy into.

The people who say this are the same people who know next to nothing about PoS.

> I remember the nineties well -- relatives would go to China and come back with armfuls of factory-pressed CDs and DVDs. Anything you wanted. Clean and new-in-box. That went away because of IP protection baked into trade agreements.

It went away because now you can buy knockoffs on AliExpress instead of relying on relatives in China.

> And before you say 'BitTorrent', please remember, the analogy is _factory_ piracy

Nope. The equivalent to electronic money is electronic piracy. Moving the goalposts does not a good argument make.

> Bitcoin requires mining rigs, and these are large, physical assets, like factories, and this is unlikely to change.

Again: there are other PoW blockchains besides Bitcoin.

Even in Bitcoin's case, hashing ASICs don't have to be large; that's currently the most profitable approach, but mining can and would readily adapt. SHA256 is also a common enough algorithm outside of Bitcoin that hardware accelerators for it have ample non-Bitcoin usecases; you'd have a hard time blanket banning any and all SHA256 hashing unless you're willing to break password authentication for the vast majority of computers in a given jurisdiction, and you'd likewise have a hard time justifying the ban of hardware that makes password hashing faster (even if it just so happens to be capable of mining Bitcoin).

> a helicopter and a FLIR cam would work, as well as cooperation from the energy provider.

And if the farm's off-grid on solar? The energy provider would have zero visibility on that, and the helicopter flying around day in and day out would be far more ecologically destructive.

> Shoot it, then.

Good luck with that.

> Yes, but you can ban the sale of various things.

We're literally talking about a class of electronic currencies which do not give the slightest sliver of a rodent's anus whether there are laws prohibiting a given transaction. That strategy hasn't worked for IP infringement (despite your assertions), it hasn't worked for the drug trade, it didn't work for liquor trade during Prohibition, it's already starting to fail with the firearms trade in gun-restricting countries (thanks, 3D printers and hardware stores!)... there is zero reason to believe it would work for cryptocurrency.

> Expand/explain. I do not understand the point you attempt to make.

What part did you not understand?