General Discussion

And it's the principle that annoys me more than anything. The "money supply" for a country is supposed to track at least somewhat with the value of the goods and services and natural resources and real estate and investments and all that. Outright destruction of energy resources should not be considered something with intrinsic "value". It's the opposite of what "money" should represent and IMHO its existence sets a bad precedent.

Granted, it's not hugely different from the way we put value on gold, but at least that's an actual real thing, with some utility (not really in accordance with its $ value, but at least some, and people put value on gold jewelry, for example). Bitcoin isn't even THAT, it's just saying "I wasted energy, polluted the atmosphere, raised other people's electricity rates, and produced NOTHING ... but hey, that's worth real money!".

Bah Humbug I say!