Bitcoin, cryptocurrency in general, especially ones built on a Proof-of-Work rewards system, has the reputation of being a waste of energy.
Sides defending or denying that claim often fall into Straw Man Arguments and while my comment on 
I already knew that Bitcoin isn't that wasteful of energy...
"BTC network is not so polluting if compared to wastes and other energy consumptions (like conditioned air)."
I think most people know too, it's just...
If your neighbor had access to government-issued electricity, but opted to not use it, and use a more expensive power generator that wastes a lot of gas. He'll have more energy for fractions of the cost if he just used the electricity the government gave him, but he hates the government just that much.
Now imagine if that same generator's noise reached your house and sometimes it gets you uncomfortable. You can live with that, but it just feels so unnecessary because you know how many resources it wastes and you think the government-issued electricity is totally fine.
See?
That's how Bitcoin feels to the people who don't see its value of it over Fiat, the cost-to-benefit proposition isn't logical to them at all.
What do you think?
I thought this example is worth sharing here and see how it's recieved by the LeoFinance community. If you like this post tell me below, because I have a lot fo thoughts like these but they're too long to share on DBuzz but too short for a full-blown post like my usual.
Salam (Peace)
- Image is by
from the Hive Stock Images community.