firerain

ty_ger07
I didn't say it was worthless. I said it isn't capable of doing what traditional banking is capable of. Since it lacks the infrastructure, its not fair to compare its power usage to the entire global banking infrastructure's power usage.
It's pretty simple logic.

Exactly my point that it isn't capable of doing what traditional banking is capable of, 

blah blah blah off-topic ideological blah

Please stay on topic. Regarding the comparison, the comparison is not fair. That is my point. That is my only point. Your ideology bores me.
On a mass scale, 7 billion people can't use it to buy half a dozen different things daily. It lacks the infrastructure. If you are going to compare both of their power usage, you can't include the power usage of one infrastructure to the power usage of another one which totally lacks infrastructure (which makes it totally unusable for many things). If you did a fair comparison for the same use, the results would be very different.
That is all. You made an argument based on a comparison that is obviously wrong (created by someone with a vested interest in ensuring that certain results were obtained).
Buy a candy bar with traditional currency and a candy bar with Bitcoin.  Then compare the power consumption.  Bitcoin would be off the charts in comparison.  Hundreds of thousands of computers racing to find a cryptographic solution first (where only one is usable work and the rest are just wasted energy) versus dozens(?) of computers acknowledging that a transaction occurred and updating their balance.
The reason traditional banking appears to use a lot of energy is because a lot of people are using it in a lot of different ways constantly.  If Bitcoin tried to do the same thing, it would be disastrous.  And if they found a solution to accomplish it, the energy usage would be insane.
It's like me saying that banking uses less electricity than light bulbs.  And if it weren't for banking, we wouldn't have lightbulbs that light up.  It's true, but what is the point?  It isn't a comparison which means anything.  Just like the comparison you tried to defend.
The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment | by Mike Hearn | Mike’s blog (plan99.net)
Bitcoin needs banking. Bitcoin cannot replace banking because there are too many things Bitcoin can't do. Bitcoin relies on banking to fill in the gaps and pump investor money in. Without banking, Bitcoin would collapse (along with the rest of modern society). So why are they trying to make Bitcoin better than banking in a silly nonsense way?
Bitcoin doesn't replace banking. Bitcoin is a patch on top of banking. I argue that it doesn't need to exist. I argue that it hasn't proven its worth.
The problem is that all effort has gone into its rarity and worth. They make it harder than it needs to be and rarer than it needs to be, so that its value is high, to the detriment of its utility. It is completely unusable in mass scale due to short-sided decisions chosen for reasons of greed.