I came across this interesting video by Steven Bartlett, you might have seen him around since he's pretty well-known for his interview snippets. This guy brings up a bold claim about Bitcoin from a crash expert.
So, the expert straight up says Bitcoin is headed for a complete crash to zero. One of the key points he made is that Bitcoin relies heavily on energy for its network. He also mentioned something about needing to overload the network to break the ledger, and that’s almost impossible because it would require massive energy.
Towards the end, he suggests that eventually we might recognize that the energy consumption is too high and crypto could be one of the things that gets the cut.
What do you guys think about this? Personally, I find his point pretty compelling, considering the huge energy drain from Bitcoin. But if there’s a chance of it actually hitting zero, what’s the point in even investing anymore?
It is estimated that Bitcoin mining consumed about ~173 TWh in 2025 and 52.4% was generated through Renewable energy. Gold mining uses roughly 240 TWh per year, making gold ~39% higher. Global data centers consume around 415 TWh yearly. It is projected that the energy consumption of data centers will reach 945 TWh by 2030. Which means it will outpace total Bitcoin and gold mining combined.
https://sqmagazine.co.uk/bitcoin-energy-consumption-statistics/
I don't know who Steven Bartlett is and I don't care about his prediction. I am surprised you are believing what this ignorant fudster is saying. If you think Bitcoin will get to zero, please don't buy. Allow us to keep stacking. I don't want to read this kind of news. You can read about Common myths about Bitcoin's energy use
Eventually there will also be a heat death of our entire universe wiping out reality without possibility of escape. So bitcoin's death is an inevitability. This is bound to happen within the next 10^100 years. If you think about it, nothing you do matters in the long term. Just depends on how long your window for saying "long term" is.
What is actually true that bitcoin will go to zero or that bitcoin uses for much energy or both.
Yes they have been various debates about bitcoin actually consuming more energy in fact its one of the basis of bitcoin mining been banned in China in the early years of bitcoin but that didnt send bitcoin to zero rather it actually send it up, so this early fights actually tells you that it will be something greater than this energy fud that will send bitcoin to zero.
As for the energy consumption, abruptly denying the fact that bitcoin doesnt actually use much energy will be a biased take, but what happens to the energy if its not use by bitcoin, some channel somewhere and others wasted. In defense of bitcoin I will say arent there other things that consumes this energy more like those mining companies of precious metals (both legal and illegal), what of energy consumption when printing or minting of fiat notes or coins.
There are seriously other energy consuming things that should government today actually decide to shut down bitcoin (which is not possible) because of this then it will be simply a biased take in respect of other things been left to work.
Energy consumption isn't a bug
It's a feature
This is what secures the network.
What's the point of working if we all still going to die?
Or socializing when everything would come to an end.
I always expect something nonsensical when people say Bitcoin is going to zero
And I have never been disappointed.
You can check out this thread
Debunking the "Bitcoin is an environmental disaster" argument
basically this.
we entered the times where Bitcoin's share of global electricity consumption will only be going down rapidly (mostly due to data centers and AI), so this whole electricity talk is just nonsensical, or at the very least nowhere near being the main concern.
Honestly, I don't think Bitcoin's price could fall to zero. More precisely, it could very well happen, but only if humanity enters a Dark Age (a new Middle Ages). 🙋 This scenario is also quite real (for example, a nuclear war, an attack on humanity by a strong AI, or a meteorite strike). 💥 In all of these cases, humanity could completely lose electricity, internet, and computers. And this (in turn) would completely eliminate the possibility of Bitcoin's existence.
/By the way, a scenario of a complete computer shutdown is described in the Dune novel series. There, it occurred as a result of an AI attempt to seize control of humanity. Humans were forced to completely abandon computers. The author, of course, didn't mention Bitcoin (it hadn't been created yet), but it's clear that this technology couldn't survive such an event.../
Power shortages? As a reason for Bitcoin's price to fall to zero? I just listened to Sam Altman's interview on YouTube today. He's spending vast sums of money on building new power plants for AI. Incidentally, AI consumes far more electricity than Bitcoin. It's safe to say: if there's enough electricity for AI, there's enough for Bitcoin!💁
However, the scenario of Bitcoin losing interest due to the loss of decentralization is, in my opinion, quite real. In other words, Bitcoin could be destroyed by government regulation (in my view, regulation, not a complete ban) and the actions of institutional players. However, even in this negative scenario, I believe Bitcoin's price won't fall to zero. There will always be crypto enthusiasts who will mine, hold, and transact with Bitcoin. However, if this negative scenario comes to fruition, we will undoubtedly see Bitcoin's price decline (with occasional periods of simulated rapid growth) over a long period of time. For example, the price could fall to $5,000 within 25 years.
This man Steven Bartlett is only bluffing and you can perceive that from his expression which also sounds like a regret that he should have bought bitcoin when it was at a pound but did not, now those that bought and hodl now have an asset he is with not.
So basically than calling for increase energy for consumption he is calling for cut down on bitcoin and international flights.
Op please answer this.
Is bitcoin mining the highest consumption of energy in the world? Between increasing energy through the diverse sources of energy generation as a solution, Bartlett sees the solution in the cutting down on Bitcoin. Will the cut down stop the increasing consumption of energy?
Anyone who believes that Bitcoin can hit zero, can actually believe in everything being said to them on the Internet. Because I can find a reason someone would say Bitcoin will go to zero because of the huge energy consumption. The government can think of cutting that off.
If cutting that off will be the future scenario, will all the governments in the world agree on that at the same time? That's what can't happen because the world is not governed by one government system. Every country has its government and they don't agree on the same thing
That is absolutely true, in the reality of life, anything is posible.
When live can be inevitable, laws guiding the people are broken without justice prevailing, the rich living in luxuries goes broke and can not even afford to pay their bills afterwards, economy and technologies including the governments also fails, the traditional currencies looses values over inflation with the USD almost becoming worthless, maybe Bitcoin in one way or the other can face it own challenges in the long run.
If the cost or deficiency of energy would make Bitcoin fall to zero and you think that is the worse happening to mankind, think about those using oxygen to be able to breathe. Life is full of risks, don't throw your eggs in one basket.
Bitcoin is neither not going to fall to zero until the D'day according to the speculation.
1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC. The only way Bitcoin could lose all its market value is if there were a vulnerability in the curve used by Bitcoin, and so far, there doesn't seem to be one. The energy issue has always been a myth. We know that Bitcoin uses a lot of energy, mining in general certainly does, but it's constantly being updated with energy improvements. We may even have self-sustaining energy in the future, as technology never stops advancing.
This is not the first time someone is saying this, and this argument that Bitcoin could go to zero because it relies on energy is common. However, the argument that Bitcoin could go to zero is not very strong when we break it down. But on the part of energy consumption, I agree with him that Bitcoin uses a lot of energy.
bitcoin runs on a system called proof of work, where miners use electricity to secure the network, However, energy used by something alone doesn't make the thing worthless, beside there are many valuable systems that also consume large amount of energy like Bitcoin. namely, Banking infrastructure, Data centers those run by Google and Amazon, Gold mining and so on.
I have also come to understand that energy use is indeed part of Bitcoin's design, So Bitcoin intentionally uses energy to secure the network against attack, make it hard to fake transactions and to keep itself decentralized.
In the end, everything always revolves around energy which is always a problem but in this case even though there are claims and always a debate about it they do not see from another point of view because bitcoin has unique characteristics here and clearly it is the answer why bitcoin will never be zero.
In the end this will also only be combined with the greenhouse effect that always happens even though we are in the focus of reducing emissions but those who talk like this do not realize that the use of energy for other sectors especially for factories that run in fact much more wasteful when compared to bitcoin.
Although this is another debate but we are aware that the energy used for mining bitcoin can be equivalent, smaller or greater than mining gold and do they include economists questioning gold mining? This is just a classic reason with a narrative that is made as if bitcoin energy is always the largest used compared to other sectors.
People worry over little speech made by nobody. I don't usually worry myself over petty talks that seems to create fud in the market.
Not today, not tomorrow. Energy consumption will not be a good reason for BTC to drop to zero and neither will it. It's better to play deaf to such talks as most of them are just to gather crowds on the internet but they barely have any knowledge of what Bitcoin is.
'We' are not going to realize this, some people will, the same people who would want us to have limited freedom of movement to reduce the effects of global warming and the same people who want us to stop using Bitcoin because it funds terrorism, Russia and whatever else.
If you ask me, 'wasting' energy on keeping a free Currency alive is worth it. I know a lot of the people leading us would think the other way around and I really do not give a damn.
"Bitcoin will go to zero". No specific time frame, just a gut feeling based off of calculations on the amount of energy being consumed which is something to consider but if we look at it, this is not something that will happen in the near future so instead of being bothered and let what ifs and a gnawing fear stop us from accumulating, it's best to silence the noise and kill the FUD. Definitely there will be so many "analysts" coming out to give their two cents about the market especially now that Bitcoin is in a steep place, so it's not news.
This isn't the first time we're seeing "Bitcoin will go to zero." It literally comes up in every cycle, just with a different excuse each time it comes up. In the past they centered on bans, hack and now, it's energy.
Yes we all know that Bitcoin uses a lot of energy but that's actually what secures the network. How do you expect a decentralised system like Bitcoin to run on nothing. Meanwhile, there are other big industries who use more energy than Bitcoin but you hardly see anyone talk about them.
Also, it's important to note that mining is already shifting to renewable energy so saying that energy alone will kill Bitcoin makes it sound like you knowledge about the subject is limited.
Bitcoin going to zero has been said or predicted more times than I can count, but the underlying belief by investors who still accumulate Bitcoin despite the FUD and FOMO of such predictions is in its utility use case and decentralized nature which makes it all the more worth the risk, irrespective of how much energy it demands to function effectively.
Energy could be like a wall that makes Bitcoin investment very much secure, because investors and developers don't want to see it fail, instead of it being viewed as a major concern that causes panic in the market and cause its price to drop to zero.
Okay, another individual who is not sure of his stance on Bitcoin. If you are not confident in the risk you are taking by buying bitcoin, you should simply avoid buying it at all.
But instead of focusing on the weaknesses and speculations about Bitcoin, we should focus more on the aspects of Bitcoin that make it valid and incapable of losing its credibility. The energy consumption isn't just in vain; it is part of what makes the Bitcoin network very secure. If Bitcoin were to go to zero as claimed, then it would mean everyone who believes in it now would have to lose interest in it; no miners, buyers, sellers, institutions, etc. That is not happening.
I find it really surprising that, at this era or point in time, people would still be coming up with these energy issues and how Bitcoin would drop to zero! I might not be the smartest person in the world but, how do anyone get to convince the entire Bitcoin or cryptocurrency population that uses Bitcoin to go back on the currency to a point that, people would be forced to sell such that, it dumps to zero. Its just never happening and with the world hopping on it for a reserve currency, there is just no way.