If Bitcoin is considered energy money and represents the purest form of currency conducive to a truly free market economy, then all energy currently used in any way that does not directly contribute via powering Bitcoin mining equipment or indirectly through the capture of excess (waste) energy for use in Bitcoin production represents an opportunity cost over the long term. The question arises: should we prioritize using energy to power miners and utilize excess energy as a byproduct for other purposes, or should we focus on harnessing excess heat from current energy consumption processes for Bitcoin production, such as powering micro Bitcoin rigs? Currently, our infrastructure cannot support the former option, as the heat energy produced cannot be efficiently repurposed beyond local applications like space heating or drying fruit.
Suppose, however, we could effectively capture and utilize this excess energy for processes such as transportation. What would such a scenario entail? Ideally, assuming the laws of physics allow, we might employ thermoacoustic, steam, or hot air engines powered by the energy output from ASICs attached to vehicles for transportation, and these ASIC’s are all powered off of an electrical grid whereby the cars have terminals they reach onto wires with. Alternatively, in a more feasible future scenario, we might use our optimized and efficient engines and energy sources for regular activities, while excess energy is captured using thermocouples or other efficient means to charge devices that power small ASICs. Individually unprofitable, these ASICs could collectively contribute to a more secure and utilized Bitcoin network through their network effect. What then of these micro rigs? Does the a central authority own the work performed by them or does each individual own the work performed by their ASIC?
