I think you are confused. The only thing that contributes to energy usage is mining blocks, aka the block reward subsidy. Without transactions, it would still happen that way. And does, in the form of empty blocks.
> I think you are confused. The only thing that contributes to energy usage is mining blocks, aka the block reward subsidy.
Which is a reward for processing transactions.
> Without transactions, it would still happen that way. And does, in the form of empty blocks.
If we eliminated the ability to transact Bitcoin, the ledger would be closed - finalized. A data blob plus a published SHA. Like any other archive.
Mining allows you to amend said ledger, by processing a batch of updates. It is the process by which you amend the ledger, grouped into blocks of 0 or more transactions.
Transactibility is what uses 100% of the energy of the bitcoin network and it's fine to quantize that energy usage on a per-block, and per-transaction basis.
Mining furnishes transactibility. Transactibility is quantized into blocks, blocks into transactions. I'm sorry, it's clear, transactions and the ability to execute them are what uses 100% of the power of Bitcoin. If not that, then what? Don't just say "mining" - explain what mining provides if not transactibility.
A block of... 0 or more what now? Which wouldn’t need to exist if the ledger was immutable? Ergo... I mean you seem pretty intelligent so I’m gonna assume you get my point.
0 or more transactions form a block, which is mined to facilitate mutations. Mutations in the form of transactions. Nothing more. The block reward is compensation for providing the service of processing blocks of 0 or more transactions. A mining scheme that consistently has 0 transactions achieved nothing. End of story. If you disagree explain to me what else mining achieves.
See it’s solely for transactions. Without transactions or mutability mining wouldn’t be required. This division is fair game. The block reward subsidy is only required to reward the processing of blocks which wouldn’t need to happen if transactions weren’t a feature.
The method of facilitating transactions consumes all the power, so you can divide the average number of transactions per block to obtain the power expended per average transaction.
Trust me I’m not struggling here, except with pushing back on the koolaid consumption. Folks who pursue extensive mental gymnastics to justify their having obtained wealth through environmental destruction: it’s like if everyone holding Bitcoin woke up one day to realize they’d killed a gorilla in the process. They’d try really hard to convince themselves they didn’t or that it wasn’t their fault. Even to pretend it didn’t happen because the gorillas were simply transmuted to a better life in the sky.
