We're all captivated by Bitcoin's potential. The promise of decentralized finance, liberation from banks and other legacy institutions, and possibly even early retirement thanks to skyrocketing crypto valuations. Have we stopped to ask ourselves: at what cost? What do we do when we get to the literal end of the line? What about the final Satoshi?
Analyst Luke Broyles believes mining the last Satoshi will be more energy intensive than he mined the first 20 million. This terrifying prediction ought to strike fear into your heart. It’s not hyperbole, it’s a real possible preview of a very dystopian future. This is not simply an exercise in digits on a spreadsheet. It’s about the human costs of an ever-upon-time, ever-harder-making machine. It’s time to discuss those ramifications, beginning today.
Infinite Energy For One Coin?
The concept of requiring “infinite energy” – even just as a metaphor – to mine the last Bitcoin is pretty scary. Let's be brutally honest: Bitcoin mining already consumes a staggering amount of electricity. At that point, Broyles estimates the last Bitcoin will start needing energy for the full first third of the 22nd century. We can’t afford to ignore this red flag. What happens as the halving continues? The latest halving in May 2020 cut the reward for producing a new block to 3.125 BTC. Before long, the next halvings will drop it even further to 1.5625 BTC. And are we truly prepared to devote considerable resources toward protecting such a digital currency? We could be harnessing that energy to do something far more productive. Imagine the advances we could make in renewable energy or medical breakthroughs. Just imagine how that same energy could be used to empower communities that have been historically underserved.
Think about it: we're chasing a finite digital resource with exponentially increasing real-world costs. It’s the equivalent of burning down an entire forest to look for one gold coin. Where's the logic in that? Where's the ethics? This isn’t anti-Bitcoin, this is pro-sanity.
Mining Centralization's Iron Grip
As mining difficulty continues to increase, it will become impossible for all but the largest and most financially endowed players to compete. That’s not conjecture—that’s the outcome that is guaranteed under the status quo. What began as a dream of democratized energy has become a dystopian nightmare. A handful of big mining pools now risk making this revolution what some call a centralized oligarchy.
This centralization isn’t just a theoretical concern—it’s having very real world implications. When only a handful of players have the majority of mining power, they’ve obtained unfair control over the blockchain. This gives them the power to censor transactions and rig the system in their favor. Are you comfortable putting your faith in the long-term outcome of your financial future in the hands of a few people? Imagine that—particularly when their only goal is to make money.
Look at this table showing a hypothetical scenario:
| Year | Mining Difficulty | Number of Miners Able to Compete |
|---|---|---|
| 2024 | X | Y |
| 2050 | 100X | Y/10 |
| 2100 | 10000X | Y/1000 |
The trend is clear. The harder it gets, the less able people are to compete. This is not decentralization. This is a slow motion power grab.
Developing Nations Left Behind?
The most alarming effect of Bitcoin’s energy appetite is the potential damage it could do to the developing world. The electricity demand from Bitcoin mining is skyrocketing. This misguided increase will, as a direct result, severely raise energy prices, thereby forcing our most vulnerable communities to pay even more for reliable, affordable energy.
Imagine a scenario where developing nations are forced to choose between providing electricity to their citizens and powering Bitcoin mining operations. It’s a decision no country should need to make. Otherwise, we’ll end up creating a system that only serves the rich, elite few. In the meantime, the costs will be disproportionately borne by the most vulnerable members of society.
And this is not just an economic issue — it is a moral one. Or are we okay designing a financial system that deepens inequality, pushing developing nations further behind? This is what I call Energy Colonialism. Our developed world has already taken up all those easier, cheaper resources. Today, it drains electricity from emerging countries in its pursuit of crypto-wealth.
If we don’t want to live with the unintended consequences of Bitcoin’s design, we need to consider them. As we celebrate these potential benefits of cryptocurrency, it is imperative to recognize their limits. We need to acknowledge and address the risks it introduces. The last Satoshi symbolizes more than the conclusion of Bitcoin’s mining, it symbolizes an important turning point in Bitcoin’s history. Will we take the opportunity to lay a different path that advances equity, environmental sustainability, and local control? If not that, can we at least envision a more sustainable, equitable, and decentralized future for cryptocurrency? The choice, ultimately, is ours.
