Analysis of Bitcoin's Energy Consumption Efficiency and Legitimacy

From the perspective that "energy is the cornerstone of civilization," energy utilization should serve the progress and well-being of human civilization. Bitcoin consumes vast amounts of energy through its Proof of Work (PoW) mechanism to secure its decentralized network, yet its efficiency and legitimacy require multidimensional evaluation.

Efficiency Analysis

• Low Energy Efficiency of Proof of Work:

  • Bitcoin mining relies on high-performance computing devices (e.g., ASIC miners), consuming massive electricity (≈100-150 TWh annually, comparable to small-to-medium-sized countries).
  • This mechanism ensures network security and decentralization (e.g., preventing 51% attacks), but energy conversion efficiency is poor: most energy is spent solving mathematical puzzles rather than creating direct value.
  • In contrast, other consensus mechanisms (e.g., Proof of Stake) achieve similar security with minimal energy (e.g., Ethereum’s switch to PoS reduced energy use by >99%), highlighting Bitcoin’s technical inefficiency.

• Cost of Decentralized Security:

  • Efficiency is reflected in Bitcoin’s success in establishing a censorship-resistant, global decentralized system that avoids single points of failure inherent in centralized institutions.
  • However, the scale of energy consumption (≈0.5% of global electricity) is disproportionate to its output (processing limited transactions), making its overall efficiency far lower than traditional financial systems or renewable energy applications.

Legitimacy Analysis

• Arguments Supporting Legitimacy:

  • Energy secures financial freedom and inclusion: Bitcoin’s decentralization grants users asset control, particularly in regions with high inflation or unstable governments, providing "digital gold" as a safe-haven asset. This aligns with the principle of "energy serving civilization."
  • Innovation driver: Mining promotes renewable energy utilization (e.g., stranded energy recovery) and hardware advancements, indirectly improving energy efficiency.

• Controversies Regarding Legitimacy:

  • Environmental and social costs: Bitcoin mining generates significant carbon emissions (≈50-100 Mt CO₂ annually), exacerbating climate change and contradicting the principle that the "energy cornerstone" should prioritize basic needs (e.g., healthcare, education).
  • Resource allocation: Amid global energy shortages, diverting vast electricity to mining instead of essential public services is seen as wasteful. Meanwhile, mining centralization trends undermine decentralization’s original intent.

Conclusion

Bitcoin’s energy use demonstrates partial efficiency in securing decentralization but suffers from overall inefficiency and significant legitimacy controversies. From the "energy as civilization’s cornerstone" perspective:

• Insufficient efficiency: The PoW mechanism has become outdated, with more energy-efficient alternatives (e.g., PoS) proving it suboptimal.
• Questionable legitimacy: Despite supporting financial freedom, environmental damage and social opportunity costs challenge its "legitimacy." A shift toward sustainable energy and enhanced real-world utility is essential. Ultimately, this energy consumption model must balance efficiency and ethics through innovation (e.g., green mining).