Wider effects.
WHAT THE ENERGY DEBATE CONCERNS
Work-based consensus consuming substantial electricity.
WHAT THE SCALE IS
Comparable to that of a medium-sized country, for the largest such network.
WHAT DEFENDERS ARGUE
That the energy is the security That generation is increasingly from otherwise wasted sources That other industries consume comparably
WHAT CRITICS ARGUE
That the consumption is discretionary That alternatives achieve security without it
WHAT THE MOVE TO STAKE-BASED CONSENSUS DEMONSTRATED
That the consumption is a design choice, not a necessity.
WHAT ELECTRONIC WASTE ADDS
Mining hardware becoming obsolete rapidly.
WHAT SOCIAL EFFECTS ARE DOCUMENTED
Substantial losses among inexperienced participants Fraud concentrated on those least able to bear it Genuine access to financial services for the excluded
WHY BOTH ARE TRUE
The same properties enable inclusion and exploitation.
WHAT THAT MEANS FOR ANYONE WORKING IN THE SECTOR
That the harm is real, and choosing what to build matters.
WHAT TO CONSIDER
Whether what you enable is something you would defend.
WHAT LOCAL RELEVANCE EXISTS
Energy is scarce and expensive here, which makes mining unviable and makes efficiency arguments practical rather than abstract.
