HN is incredibly homogenious across certain verticals, crypto being one of them. The earth is flat and you'll be downvoted if you suggest otherwise. All ideas should be up for fair debate and, at worst, let the "wrong" side choose to believe what they please, unless you think your thoughts need external censoring as well.
No, I would never downvote for opinions expressed.
But I certainly downvote ludicrous and dishonest statements like Visa consumes more energy than bitcoin and here's why.
While theoritcally true here's the thing:
While one bitcoin transaction consumes 1'005 kWh of energy 100'000 visa transactions require 169 kWh.[1]
Trying to frame that in a way that Visa is more expensive than Bitcoin, energy wise, is a deeply dishonest sleight of hand, which absolutely deserves to be downvoted into oblivion.
What are the heuristics for computing your chart? How much energy was it to make the plastic on the credit card terminals? Do bankers drive Priuses or Cadillacs? What if Bitcoin eliminates 50,000 bankers's air-conditioned office desks?
Is Bitcoin's cost per transaction a fixed number or improving in efficiency? What if planes were "downvoted" 10 years after invention due to inefficiency over rail transport?
