Nowhere have I claimed that bitcoin is unique in this, so I don’t really want to engage with this ”what about”-argument of yours. I merely reacted to your post which said that ”the premise in itself is absurd.” Given what Walker was talking about I assumed you wanted to make the point that bitcoin is not taking a toll on the environment. However, you apparently just meant that ”using energy is not bad” and I have no intention to argue with that atm. Maybe we are just talking past each other.

I am not comparing energy consumption to smoking cigarettes. I was trying to make a point that you could argue that using something is not bad (or even good), but some of the effects can be quite harmful. Much like using energy. It has given us the amazing bitcoin, but not without it’s negative externalities.

One could argue that it’s not bad to enjoy a cigarette, but I think most of us would agree that the smoke is harmful for our lungs. Using energy is maybe not bad but it doesn’t come without negative externalities.

What premise? That bitcoin is not energy intensive? Yes, that seems like an absurd premise indeed.

Maybe. I have no idea what Jack Dorsey is about really. Everything is more than what meets the eye.

Also true!

It’s complex.

Lol ”nuanced viewpoint”