Schiff rejects Bitcoin energy narrative, arguing mining power creates no real value Bitcoin battery theory faces scrutiny as Schiff labels mining electricity entirelySchiff rejects Bitcoin energy narrative, arguing mining power creates no real value Bitcoin battery theory faces scrutiny as Schiff labels mining electricity entirely

Schiff Dismisses Bitcoin Energy Claims, Calls BTC Mining Power a Total Waste

  • Schiff rejects Bitcoin energy narrative, arguing mining power creates no real value
  • Bitcoin battery theory faces scrutiny as Schiff labels mining electricity entirely wasted
  • Energy debate intensifies after Schiff challenges Bitcoin’s claim of storing economic output

The debate around Bitcoin’s energy use gained renewed attention after comments from gold advocate Peter Schiff rejected popular narratives within crypto circles.
His remarks pushed back against claims that Bitcoin functions as a long-term store of economic energy. According to Schiff, the idea that Bitcoin preserves human labor in digital form relies on misleading comparisons. He argued that equating electricity consumption with stored value ignores how energy behaves in the physical world.


This criticism directly targets a theory promoted by Bitcoin maximalists. They claim that work expends energy and Bitcoin captures that output inside an immutable ledger. That interpretation has been most visibly advanced by Michael Saylor, who frequently describes money as stored economic output. Within that framework, Bitcoin is portrayed as a digital battery immune to inflation and decay.


However, Schiff rejected this analogy by emphasizing the finality of energy consumption. According to him, electricity used during BTC mining is consumed instantly and cannot be recovered or reused. Moreover, Schiff stressed that Bitcoin provides no usable power in real-world conditions. If electrical infrastructure fails, holding 1 BTC delivers zero watts or mechanical output.


Additionally, he described Bitcoin mining as energy destruction rather than conversion. From his perspective, energy that produces no tangible or functional output represents waste.


Also Read: SHIB Burn Shock as 2,000,002 Tokens Vanish Yet Burn Rate Crashes 32%


Gold Comparison Underscores Schiff’s Argument

To reinforce his position, Schiff compared Bitcoin mining with gold extraction. Both activities require large-scale electricity use, fuel consumption, and heavy industrial equipment. However, Schiff highlighted a key distinction between the two processes. Gold mining results in a physical metal with established industrial and commercial demand. Gold supports electronics manufacturing, medical devices, aerospace systems, and jewelry production.


Consequently, Schiff argued that mining energy becomes embedded in a usable commodity. By contrast, he said Bitcoin mining ends with a digital ledger entry. That record, according to Schiff, offers no physical utility beyond speculative value.


Meanwhile, Bitcoin supporters continue defending the energy-based narrative. They argue that mining converts electricity into network security and monetary reliability. That argument gained broader exposure after Elon Musk described Bitcoin as a physics-based monetary system. Musk linked Bitcoin’s value to the measurable energy required to secure the network. Still, Schiff dismissed those comparisons as symbolic rather than functional. and maintained that metaphors cannot substitute for material usefulness.


The dispute unfolds during ongoing volatility in digital asset markets. Price forecasts above $90,000 continue circulating despite criticism from traditional economists. Significantly, Schiff’s comments reflect a long-standing divide between hard-asset advocates and crypto supporters. One camp prioritizes physical output, while the other values decentralization and digital scarcity.


At the same time, Bitcoin proponents argue that instant global transfers justify the energy cost. They claim censorship resistance offsets concerns about electricity consumption. Schiff remains firm in his assessment of Bitcoin’s energy model. He maintains that BTC mining power creates no lasting economic value and represents a total waste of electricity.


Also Read: $1B Ethereum Staking Move by Fundstrat-Backed Firm Sends Supply Shock Signals


The post Schiff Dismisses Bitcoin Energy Claims, Calls BTC Mining Power a Total Waste appeared first on 36Crypto.

Market Opportunity
Bitcoin Logo
Bitcoin Price(BTC)
$87,608.28
$87,608.28$87,608.28
-0.26%
USD
Bitcoin (BTC) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For

The post The Channel Factories We’ve Been Waiting For appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Visions of future technology are often prescient about the broad strokes while flubbing the details. The tablets in “2001: A Space Odyssey” do indeed look like iPads, but you never see the astronauts paying for subscriptions or wasting hours on Candy Crush.  Channel factories are one vision that arose early in the history of the Lightning Network to address some challenges that Lightning has faced from the beginning. Despite having grown to become Bitcoin’s most successful layer-2 scaling solution, with instant and low-fee payments, Lightning’s scale is limited by its reliance on payment channels. Although Lightning shifts most transactions off-chain, each payment channel still requires an on-chain transaction to open and (usually) another to close. As adoption grows, pressure on the blockchain grows with it. The need for a more scalable approach to managing channels is clear. Channel factories were supposed to meet this need, but where are they? In 2025, subnetworks are emerging that revive the impetus of channel factories with some new details that vastly increase their potential. They are natively interoperable with Lightning and achieve greater scale by allowing a group of participants to open a shared multisig UTXO and create multiple bilateral channels, which reduces the number of on-chain transactions and improves capital efficiency. Achieving greater scale by reducing complexity, Ark and Spark perform the same function as traditional channel factories with new designs and additional capabilities based on shared UTXOs.  Channel Factories 101 Channel factories have been around since the inception of Lightning. A factory is a multiparty contract where multiple users (not just two, as in a Dryja-Poon channel) cooperatively lock funds in a single multisig UTXO. They can open, close and update channels off-chain without updating the blockchain for each operation. Only when participants leave or the factory dissolves is an on-chain transaction…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 00:09
Solana Co-Founder Predicts Stablecoin Supply Could Top $1T by 2026

Solana Co-Founder Predicts Stablecoin Supply Could Top $1T by 2026

The post Solana Co-Founder Predicts Stablecoin Supply Could Top $1T by 2026 appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko predicts stablecoin
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/29 02:32
Tokenization and AI: The emergence of orbital cloud infrastructure | Opinion

Tokenization and AI: The emergence of orbital cloud infrastructure | Opinion

Evaluating key energy requirements to support the growth in AI-driven tokenization necessitating orbital cloud data centers.
Share
Crypto.news2025/12/29 02:04