Re: [LAUNCHED] Bitcoincleanup.com: a website to stop Greenpeace's bitcoin FUD.
⭐ Merited by BlackHatCoiner (1)
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 their purpose. 
The sweets (energy) were not wasted, because they allowed something else (have energy for your body / create Bitcoin) to happen which wouldn't be possible otherwise.I think the problem is that people assume since PoS allows to 'create coins' without work, PoW is wasteful. It's crucial to explain that it's not possible to provide what PoW provides, without the 'work' component.
Remember this quote from Vitalik; he admitted it himself..
Vitalik, summing up that there's sacrifice in security:
Quote from: How I Learned to Love Weak Subjectivity
Because of all the arguments above, we can safely conclude that this threat of an attacker building up a fork from arbitrarily long range is unfortunately fundamental, and in all non-degenerate implementations the issue is fatal to a proof of stake algorithm’s success in the proof of work security model. However, we can get around this fundamental barrier with a slight, but nevertheless fundamental, change in the security model.