"Bitcoin/PoW is designed to waste energy" ??
The problem with this statement is:
(i) it is ambiguous - it conflates the objective and the method.
(ii) it takes zero account of output value, so it conflates 'consume' and 'waste'.
The
objective of Bitcoin/PoW is decentralised and secure digital property = true.
The
method of Bitcoin/PoW consumes a lot of energy = true.
Does consume = waste ?
All energy consumption includes wasting energy = uninteresting truism.
Breathing wastes energy but breathing is clearly not 'a waste of energy'.
The only interesting question is whether something is 'a waste of energy'.
'a waste of energy' = total input energy > output value (and output value is subjective)
Bitcoin is ‘a waste of energy' if you don't, subjectively, value Bitcoin = another uninteresting truism.
'a waste of energy' = using methodA instead of equally effective and more energy-efficient methodB.
Is Proof of Stake an equally effective and more energy-efficient method than PoW ?
No. PoS is not equally effective at all. PoS is not decentralised. PoS requires trust in the big stakeholders, and they can't be deposed by the masses.
Jason Lowery provides a good explanation of PoW vs PoS from first principles.
Proof of Work is the
only effective method we have for 'decentralised and secure' digital property.
Is Visa an equally effective and more energy-efficient solution than Bitcoin ?
No. Visa is in no way equivalent to Bitcoin. Bitcoin is final settlement vs Visa's entries on temporary ledgers. Moreover, Bitcoin is a standalone system vs Visa's multitude of dependencies on other systems.
In just security terms, Visa is like a Post-It note with your name on it stuck to a dollar bill. That's only secure if it's in a safe that's in a vault that's in a trusted bank that's in a well-policed neighbourhood that's in a nation that's protected by a legal system that's supported by a government that's protected by a powerful military, etc. - and all those dependencies consume a vast amount of energy. Bitcoin is independent of all of that.
"
But it still seems so wasteful. All those TWh consumed making pointless guesses at a pointless solution to some pointless problem!"
It can
seem wasteful to a casual observer as the outcome is invisible and intangible. The outcome, and the whole point of PoW, is a 'wall of energy' behind which Bitcoin is secure. It, necessarily, requires substantial energy to create a substantial 'wall of energy'. Every one of those 'pointless' guesses is like a brick in Bitcoin's version of a Fort Knox wall.
Bitcoin's 'wall of energy' is directly equivalent to the Fort Knox 'walls of energy'.
Both, necessarily, cost a significant amount of energy to build and maintain.
Breaching either would, necessarily, require a (generally, prohibitively) significant amount of energy.
There is no low-energy security solution that will reliably protect from high-energy attacks.
There is a reason why Fort Knox walls aren't low-energy fences.
There is a reason why Bitcoin isn't low-energy Proof of Stake.
It's the same reason.