I’ve only ever seen this view on HackerNews and some parts of Twitter.
It’s interesting to me because Bitcoin seems very much like a “hacker” topic that HN would generally like. So how and why did opinions change? Every time Bitcoin is mentioned, every reply is someone very angrily posting about environmental concerns.
Much of that electricity is not going to be from renewables, hydro, or nuclear, so generating CO2 and other GHG.
However, I suspect what makes it be perceived as particularly environmentally unfriendly is that there is no inherent societal value in the effort.
[1] https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...
It's like saying in the 90's that electric cars will never catch on. The oil and gas companies will crush them before they even get started. Or an app that allows you to hail a car? Taxi companies are one of the most corrupt areas with the biggest lobbyists, you would have to be a total moron to try that. A cryptocurrency exchange in the US? Good luck keeping your bank accounts open.
Electricity consumption is a moot point. Bitcoin is here to stay.
Often times the best opportunities are when you have done your research and conclude the exact opposite of general consensus.