1. So what? Being the foundation of the network doesn't mean its not wasted. Knowing for a fact that there are better alternatives (PoS v3, for example), we can argue that it is possible to sustain a secure crypto network without wasting huge amounts of power.
Fact? I'm supportive of the idea that less energy-intensive Byzantine fault tolerance mechanisms can succeed. I haven't seen evidence that there are alternative systems that can
even begin to approach Bitcoin's security guarantees.
One of the problems is that POS analysis depends on massive, unproven assumptions. It will be a decade or more before we can have an honest discussion of the merits of ideally-designed POS vs. POW. There simply isn't real-world evidence to back up the assumptions or suggest true hardness from a network security perspective.
2. Can you prove that? Can you? Or is it just your belief? How do explain the recent rise of new PoS coins, and even the ETH plans to transition to PoS? I'm guessing all these guys are stupid... right? PoW is an obsolete consensus mechanism, there are better alternatives. Period!
If POS is unproven or cannot presently provide the same security guarantees as POW, that doesn't mean that Vlad Zamfir is stupid. The recent rise of POS coins doesn't mean anything except that the market wants them, for better or worse.
5. Yes, it is. So what? You justify one mistake with another? What a nice argument... PoW's energy waste cannot be excused because oil, gold or diamond companies are also wasting power. They are all wrong!
This gets back to the original problem. Obviously, if a POS system can provide security guarantees as strong as Bitcoin's, that would be preferable. I disagree that POW's energy waste is "wrong" given the lack of energy-sustainable alternatives.