That's just completely incorrect and demonstrates an ignorance of the history of computers.
>And the internet.
Once again, this statement demonstrates an ignorance of history. The early internet was a monumental research and engineering effort funded by the U.S. military because its utility was completely apparent before it was even built.
You might want to re-consider your claim of my ignorance of history and maybe think if I might have a point, even though it opposes your opinion. Nevertheless, certainly you're not claiming the USG knew that expending X resources on the early internet would result in Google?
[edit]
For those reading this who are perhaps a bit more open minded, it is not clear what the future productivity gains will be from moving capital allocation out of the hands of central banks into the hands of Bitcoin hodlers. To beat a dead horse, If 51% of energy is devoted to securing btc, but capital is allocated in a way such that productivity increases x%, where x offsets mining/transaction costs, what's the problem?
> certainly you're not claiming the USG knew that expending X resources on the early internet would result in Google?
Of course not, why would you even think that? What about a technology being obviously useful implies the need to make arbitrary predictions multiple decades into the future?
Ok then how can you say that Bitcoin mining is wasteful? How can you be certain that it will not lead to massive productivity gains? What is the standard you are comparing Bitcoin to for resources required to enable censorship free payments? And how do you know precisely how much censorship free payments is worth now or at any time in the future?
That's just completely incorrect and demonstrates an ignorance of the history of computers.
>And the internet.
Once again, this statement demonstrates an ignorance of history. The early internet was a monumental research and engineering effort funded by the U.S. military because its utility was completely apparent before it was even built.