No.
Ok, I'll bite: It always puzzled me how Bitcoiners, who I think are people who question the nature of money and what it is or can be, fell for this energy battery narrative. It's clear that Bitcoin uses energy for mining (which is then lost as heat to the environment) but it's beyond me why people believe that the fact that it can be used as money and make someone else on the other side of the planet move physical objects by paying them to do so makes it any sort of energy. Saylor did this.
I don't regard the energy used in Bitcoin mining as lost. At the global level, all that hashing energy was required to create new bitcoins, so the energy served it's purpose; the heat being a by-product.
I can envisage each bitcoin as a representation and manifestation of all that global energy used in the hashing, and since bitcoins reside in the digital realm, I don't see the digital energy moniker as problematic.
reply
Agreed. It makes the community appear naive to anyone with a 101 understanding of monetary economics.
reply
I'd argue that money. especially bitcoin, is an abstract manifestation of productivity (store of value). It may not be a store of energy, but it does act as a battery in a sense of value that can be used later. Combine that with the ability to use it globally almost instantly, his point still stands IMO.
People who actually believe that bitcoin is literal energy are completely missing the point, which I don't believe you are saying by the way.
Maybe "energy" is the wrong word, but it's a decent metaphor in my opinion.
reply
It's a battery of value.
Value creation requires energy, directly or indirectly.
reply