Quote from: NotATether on September 28, 2022, 03:04:06 PM

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on September 27, 2022, 04:00:16 PM

Quote

Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, and plastic all require enormous amounts of energy to be produced and used; what is the amount of energy considered excessive to produce them? Why is this calculation done for Bitcoin and not for other goods?

In your opinion, what should I replace this particular bullet point with?

Perhaps remove it from that paragraph, and make it a headline: "Televisions, airplanes, Christmas lights, etc., all require energy to work properly. What makes you think an unstoppable, censorship-resistant, free-of-human-error, efficient, global payment network doesn't?"

Quote from: NotATether on September 28, 2022, 03:04:06 PM

I feel as though the others can be kept to provide a comparison point as long as I manage to demonstrate that Bitcoin is an essential benefit to the world, as you said.

The essential benefits you ought to describe, should be about Proof-of-Work, because half of your subject is to demonstrate why Proof-of-Stake is not an alternative. Describing the benefits of Bitcoin might seem on-topic, but the core of Bitcoin, and the assertions we argue in favor of it, rely on Proof-of-Work.

Quote from: NotATether on September 28, 2022, 03:04:06 PM

How about I add a second sentence to the myth so that it becomes: "Proof of Work is a waste of energy, but Proof of Stake is environmentally friendly with no drawbacks"?

I don't like it, because the myth isn't evident. Is it that Proof-of-Work is a waste? Is it that Proof-of-Stake comes with no drawbacks? Is it both? I presume it's both, but it isn't clear enough. Some may comprehend you're admitting Proof-of-Work is a wasteful mechanism, which isn't true. Securing the network of this significant monetary alternative is definitely not a waste.

Quote from: n0nce on September 28, 2022, 04:38:28 PM

Additionally to the (for some rather vague) argument that 'the energy is not wasted; it is stored in the coins' value' or 'the energy is converted into BTC which have value because of what we can do with them', there is this more tangible argument that the energy doesn't just poof away, but gets money into the miners' pockets.

The energy is neither wasted nor does it "get saved" in miners' pocket. It's used, gone, removed from supply. When you eat sweets with sugar, and gain this little energy which you then use to study, it's spent. Your paperwork doesn't contain that energy, nor can you replace that paperwork with sugar. And of course, eating these sweets was definitely not a waste, because it helped you do this one job. You might had used them elsewhere, like selling them or treating them, which would lead to other outcomes, but you're absolutely the one who's deciding what to do with the sweets.