^ Also taking note that we're talking about Bitcoin here — probably literally the most difficult industry to regulate.
Yeah, the only way you achieve mass regulation with Bitcoin is unfortunately via bringing in legislation, and even then its not a guarantee people will listen. That's the unfortunate thing about this though, while I think it's all being blown out of proportion, the real risk is public perception, and right now the public would probably support bringing in some hefty legislation to control Bitcoin, since in their heads we are the big bad wolves, when in reality we're, but a spec on the very well oiled machine.
The attacks would continue even if crypto currency were completely sustainable. Out of all the angles to attack crypto, energy consumption is by far the weakest and most illogical. Don't expect these people to be arguing in good faith.
I don't know. I would disagree. The way the world is going, I actually think the energy debate might be the one that to significantly prevent Bitcoin adoption, and probably is the biggest threat. Now, don't jump to conclusions there, I don't think this because the claims are absolutely right, I say this because it's a matter of public perception. Public perception is important to us, even if we do like to pretend it isn't. Public perception, directly translates to adoption, which effectively...effects all of us. So, we should be caring about what the public think to a certain extent, however convincing them of the almost slander that has been happening will be difficult. I say almost slander, because in reality they have a point that we could be better, but so could every other industry out there.
Bitcoin is just easier to attack since there's no way to actually verify all the numbers, and there's no authority pointing miners what to do. Also, the fact that Proof of Work is seen as a negative thing by most people due to the energy needed, even though it's vital to Bitcoin in its current implementation.