How can you say "if you scaled up the bitcoin system" and "this is not how bitcoin scales" in the same argument?
Bitcoin could handle arbitrary scaling with little power-usage increase had it not been intentionally hamstrung by (for lack of a better term) "small-blockers". This is because the primary power usage of bitcoin (mining) does not scale linearly with transactions/block. The transactions to include are usually considered once by the miners who then make iterated attempts at solving by modifying the block nonce, not the included transactions.
When that changes I’ll update my math. Until then it doesn’t matter. Its less efficient on a per transaction basis by falsification. It is fundamentally thermodynamically impossible for it to be more efficient today on a per transaction basis. It’s been 14 years. Time to look in the mirror and stop making excuses for its devastating waste.
The case I am making is that it is not possible for Visa to use as much power as Bitcoin on a per transaction basis based on today's energy usage, factoring in all exernalities - because the world would be out of power.
I am simply countering Nic's trivially incorrect position.
You countered the position, but you did not spend time understanding it.
As an example, ACH is an FTP based system that largely runs once a day (maybe 2-3x now), fed by various backing mechanics for the bank itself, including the Fed and whatever else you’d want to suck in.
Visa’s transaction rate is completely orthogonal to that system. Visa could 10x their transaction rate without touching that underlying system if they wanted to, as could something attached to Bitcoin. So your argument about scaling Bitcoin up counters a poor understanding of the initial position—so poor as to make it a different position entirely.
It's not worth understanding because the goalpoast shifts every 5 minutes. Bitcoin is like a religion. Every point you tear down they come back and say ah but wait! The princess is in another castle!
Because there's nothing there.
The whole thesis of Bitcoin is that it's trustless, decentralized and permissionless. It's also obvious that it doesn't scale beyond a single Costco or a mid-sized flea market. The only way to scale it is "Layer 2" networks which fundamentally are trustful, centralized and/or permissioned. Because that's the only way to scale. You can back those L2 networks with anything. Gold. Shoes. Dollars. GME shares if you ask Bittrex in any non-US market. There aren't even any guarantees these un-audited, un-accountable, un-regulated exchanges aren't selling more bitcoins than exist the way you oversell seats on a plane. Should be fine unless there's a run.
If all you want is a one-way message for net settlement between banks, I recommend you investigate SWIFT and ACATS.
The system doesn't do what it says on the sticker. The only reason anyone cares is number go up. And number only goes up if you go through the kind of crazy mental gymnastics Nic did.
[edit: ACH is dead, long live RTP [1], and guess what, RTP doesn't use one Argentina of electricity either somehow]
[edit: My argument isn't about scaling, it's about Wh per transaction, which Nic is strictly, totally and completely wrong about; let's stay on topic]
Bitcoin could handle arbitrary scaling with little power-usage increase had it not been intentionally hamstrung by (for lack of a better term) "small-blockers". This is because the primary power usage of bitcoin (mining) does not scale linearly with transactions/block. The transactions to include are usually considered once by the miners who then make iterated attempts at solving by modifying the block nonce, not the included transactions.