There was an article pointing out that if BTC reaches 2 trillion GWP, it will require about 2% of the world's energy. I haven't been able to find it, but what are some persuasive arguments against the idea that 2 trillion GWP is worth 2% of our energy?
I recall seeing this comment as well. Measuring BTC in GWP is an odd concept - maybe I misread - but I take it that means 2 trillion worth of global world product is made in BTC? Or just that BTC price X coins in existence = 2 trillion?
Apparently today we consume 100% of our energy (hah!) for GWP of 78 trillion (nominal) [1]. So 2% for 2 trillion would actually appear to be more efficient. But again, I am not sure if this definition is even real, nor does this math apply.
Maybe this is up there with bitcoin "market cap" or "price to earnings" terminology... :|
I'm not sure if that math makes sense. Most economic activity involves actually doing useful things, not just shuffling numbers around. Obviously there is a segment of economic activity which is, but the vast majority is other stuff.
If you get $2 trillion of economic activity denominated in Bitcoin, that activity is going to use a lot of energy in its own right. The energy used for transferring the Bitcoins around goes on top of that. If the network itself uses 2% of worldwide energy usage, that doesn't leave much for the economic activity it represents.
