Assuming all the underlying assumptions are correct, isn’t this still comparing apples to oranges? Bitcoin does around 250k transactions per day [1] compared to credit cards doing ~1 billion [2]. And Bitcoin will only get less efficient.

[1]. https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_transactions_per_day [2]. https://www.cardrates.com/advice/number-of-credit-card-trans...

This comment says it all: without meaningful comparison of the transaction count, its a false comparison.

The 'banking system' is a vast and comprehensive global system upon which everything basically rests, it's the 'water utility' of economics and it's far far more than 'credit settlements'.

Given that BTC doesn't really add any value and consumes 1/2 that energy, it doesn't really bode well for BTC however the comparison is done.

But, if we use the transaction count as a rough analogue, and we compare energy costs for the transaction counts, We'd come to that conclusion on a stronger basis.

The sheer vapidity of the "mining gold consumes more energy" argument bodes really badly for the intellectual honesty of the BTC proponents: At root, they actually don't care about the energy cost of the blockchain, because they don't care about it being useful, as long as their speculative gain occurs.

Although the banking system is rife with flaws as well, it does all the worlds transactions and isn't an inherent pyramid Ponzi scheme.

This is really comparing apples to apple carts.

The "research" narrowly defines Bitcoin energy consumption to include mining and node operation, but broadly defines banking industry energy usage to include even things like branch offices and ATMs.

A surprised Pikachu gif should really accompany their conclusion that the global financial industry consumes more energy the bitcoin mining and nodes.

This article is the kind of thing that, by strenght of title alone, will reinforce the feel-good feeling of belonging-ness in people who bought into Bitcoin (and likely own some, and see Musk's comment on energy consumption as a betrayal).

Strangely, I think it will also reinforce the "bitcoin is a scam" position in people who hold that opinion; mostly because the article seems like on the level of those shady multilevel marketing "talking points"

What I means is that it is strange to consider an article that will change nobody's mind an inch, but may dig them in a little bit further

One of those systems powers the entire global economic system, employs probably 100 million people, an we would be adrift without it.

The other doesn't do anything.

That one uses 1/2 the energy of the other should be shocking, I don't see how this can be a good look for BTC.

The notion of tying outcomes to whoever can burn the most energy (all other things roughly equal) was really not a good idea.