... the crypto evangelist won’t address genuine questions. If someone raises a legitimate question, the crypto evangelist simply says “incorrect” without addressing it. For example, everyone knows that Bitcoin uses vast amounts of electricity, furthering the world’s reliance on fossil fuels. The evangelist simply replies, “No, it doesn’t,” usually followed up with something along the lines of “You’re too old to understand.” It’s maddening, like that SNL skit with the tobacco lawyer.
2 comments.
First, there is a BIG difference between a "crypto-evangelist", and a "Bitcoin evangelist". (If this is not clear, google something like "the importance of Bitcoin maximalism", or simply read up on why it is that the SEC considers BTC an asset vs almost all other "alts and shitcoins" as unregistered securities). It a bit like calling some en "equities evangelist", without distinguishing between specific equities.
Second, you actually provide a great example of the misunderstanding of people who take a negative view of Bitcoin (without really understanding the incorrectness of their statements or biasses). For example, the "Oh but Bitcoin uses the amount of electricity of country X" FUD. Such statements are usually made without looking at what proportion of that energy comes from renewable sources of energy that would not ever be utilized for anything else. (Think hydro power in remote locations, solar and wind power in desserts uninhabited by any significant populations, geo thermal in remote locations, etc). And then thinking about the economic incentives which will ultimately drive to cheaper and cheaper sources of energy (because BTC hashing, unlike most power consumed, does not need to be done in locations proximate to large populations (due to the rapid loss of electrical energy over distance). And then to take a moment to reason and understand, when promoting "lower cost energy alternatives", that the energy (ie "effort") required to hash Bitcoin is the very essence of the value Bitcoin has, in terms of scarcity and security. Let alone considering the benefits and utility that Bitcoin provides to so many in the world (the unbanked, the most vulnerable who are having their money devalued by the day yet have no access to leverage or hard assets, those in oppressive regimes who wish to escape with their small savings to another country, those who are being absolutely screwed by the big banks and currency remitters when wishing to transfer money home to their countries from a foreign location).
Further, the energy use to hash BTC, is a function of its demand. Its essentially caused by people "voting collectively", that they want the benefits that Bitcoin provides. If there is no demand, there would be no incentive to supply. Then you could consider 2nd layer networks on the BTC base layer, such as the Lightening Network.
But either way, from an investment perspective, BTC does not care what anyone personally thinks of its utility. Bitcoin is amorphous and it simply keeps doing what it was designed to do - and that can never be stopped. So its really simply on the future demand side of the equation we need to be taking a view on when deciding whether to allocate money towards it as investors.
I can understand why people who understand Bitcoin get somewhat frustrated at the lack of thought by no-coiners. But either way, this does not mean that Bitcoiners should be short or rude. Rather, I agree, they should indeed take the time to explain (ideally to people who truly do wish to understand).
Much of this ultimately comes down to a mental framework and core beliefs or "truths" being challenged, and how humans typically react when confronted with such change. There was a good speech on this here:
https://youtu.be/7EahaWJVG8o
Much like a restaurant having the "problem" of customers lining up for hours trying to get a seat. But either way, there are other ways to satisfy the BTC demand, including buying it directly, or eventually via a physically backed ETF.
