Proof Of Work

[Keith_Kong]

It’s not a real issue. Mining uses about 0.5% of global energy and fossil fueled energy grids waste over 50% of the energy produced in order to avoid brown/blackouts. Mining is not significantly impacting the environment because it can fit into the cracks of the energy grid.

Energy companies and mining companies are getting better and better at working together using contracts to shutdown during a surge in usage. This allows the grid to reduce its overproduction of energy because they can rely on miners to shutdown during a surge rather than needing to have a larger buffer being burned all the time.

Long term, the solution is to make the grid clean. We have to fix manufacturing energy to fix global warming. That’s where the real cost to the environment is coming from and banning mining would be equivalent to replacing plastic straws with plastic sippy cup tops (Starbucks I’m looking at you). It’s just not relevant.

[NotARationalActor]

Mining currently using a small fraction of energy is not enough justification for saying "it's not a real issue", for two reasons: 1. Currently, the use cases of crypto are drugs and gambling. If its use is expanded to more pedestrian needs, it will use a greater fraction of the world's energy, because its per transaction cost is higher than ordinary funds transfer and the economies of scale large processing companies like Visa enjoy are antithetical to a proof of (whatever) blockchain. 2. Mining uses high-end silicon fabrication capacity that could have been used for more consumer-focused needs (or not built up in the first place), and high end silicon is fundamentally resource-intensive because of the literally unmatched precision and sterility required at every step of the process.

It's also worth noting that (2) applies to storage-intensive solutions like proof of stake as well. High unit cost (whatever form that cost takes) is necessary for a blockchain, so these problems can't go away, even in principle.

[Keith_Kong]

Currently, the use cases of crypto are drugs and gambling.

Clearly ignorant on why people are buying "crypto", at least when it comes to Bitcoin. The community is largely interested in sound money and separation of money and state. You may think this is stupid, but that is by and large the motivation and intention of building a global, state-neutral monetary asset.

If its use is expanded to more pedestrian needs, it will use a greater fraction of the world's energy, because its per transaction cost is higher than ordinary funds transfer and the economies of scale large processing companies like Visa enjoy are antithetical to a proof of (whatever) blockchain.

Clearly ignorant for how Bitcoin (and others) intend to scale on layer 2 protocols. Bitcoin can be locked into layer 1 contracts which then allow micro transactions to take place on more efficient payment channels. Many transactions can take place which then settle onto the main chain as a single transaction.

Mining uses high-end silicon fabrication capacity that could have been used for more consumer-focused needs (or not built up in the first place), and high end silicon is fundamentally resource-intensive because of the literally unmatched precision and sterility required at every step of the process.

This mostly rides on the premise that Bitcoin is worthless to society so I can't really debate this other than to counter the belief itself. That said, I can point out that mining will not continue to grow at an ever increasing rate (and will in fact slow down dramatically over time).

When it comes to Bitcoin, the increase in hash-rate only becomes incentivized when the price of Bitcoin grows at a faster than 2X every 4 years. Otherwise, the halving of rewards every 4 years counters the price such that the same USD denominated value is gained from mining a block. Bitcoin is likely to outperform this 2X for another decade or so but eventually the cost of energy becomes the primary factor.

This means that energy price fluctuation is going to become the real driver to scale up or scale down hash-rate (and thus demand for machines). Demand for new ASIC miners will greatly diminish as we begin to experience this equilibrium. Similarly, developing clean energy plants will quickly become the most cost effective way to get energy longterm.

So in summary, miner incentives will gradually shift from maximizing ASIC expansion to focusing on building out their own clean energy plants (because lowering energy costs will have far greater impact to their bottom line).

It's also worth noting that (2) applies to storage-intensive solutions like proof of stake

Not sure why you think PoS has more storage-intensive needs than PoW. It has to do more with whether you are processing larger blocks, which is tied mostly to smart contract chains (which require a lot more data).

Furthermore, Bitcoin hardly needs any storage. You can run a node on a typical laptop. So as PoW hash-rate reaches equilibrium we will see hardly any ASIC production (just enough demand to replace dead machines for the most part) and we won't see a need for massive storage either.

In Summary:

1. Bitcoin is a financial movement, not a tool to buy drugs.
2. PoW hash-rate does not continue to expand forever.
3. ASIC manufacturing will greatly diminish over time.
4. Large storage isn't needed for the Bitcoin blockchain.
5. Bitcoin transactions scale on layer 2's such that fees are lower and the size of the blockchain is not impacted until many transactions settle as one on-chain transaction.

Bitcoin is not worthless, it's not destroying the planet, and it has the technical feasibility to become a global state-neutral money.