The link between Bitcoin and energy has long fueled intense debate. Some argue that cryptocurrency embodies the energy expended in its creation. Others argue that energy is merely consumed, not retained. The discussion highlights deep misconceptions about how Proof-of-Work (PoW) actually functions and what it secures.
The Misconception About “Stored Energy”
The idea that energy is stored in Bitcoin is scientifically inaccurate. Electricity powers computers that perform cryptographic work, but once used, that energy is gone. Bitcoin does not contain the energy—it records proof that work was done. Each block is evidence of computation, not a battery of stored power.
It's stored in the Bitcoin protocol, every block is mined according to the difficulty of the network at that time.
Hence the name, Proof of Work, every block is a proof that a certain amount of Work that costs energy went into it.
If i want to double spend on Bitcoin, i need…
— Vet (@Vet_X0) October 31, 2025
Understanding Proof-of-Work
Proof-of-Work is the backbone of Bitcoin’s security. It requires miners to solve mathematical puzzles using computational energy. When a miner finds a valid hash, a new block is created.
That block becomes a verifiable record of the work done, ensuring the blockchain’s immutability. The greater the network’s difficulty, the more energy miners expend to maintain it.
Why Energy Use Matters
The energy used in Bitcoin mining is what makes it expensive to attack. To alter previous transactions, an attacker must redo the work for all affected blocks. This would require enormous energy and cost. Thus, Bitcoin’s security depends on the total energy expended—not on the idea of energy being stored within the tokens.
Vet’s Clarification on X
In a detailed post on X, prominent analyst Vet addressed the debate. He explained that Bitcoin’s blocks represent cryptographic proof of the energy used to mine them. Each block’s difficulty reflects the hashpower required to produce it.
According to Vet, this is why the network is secure: the “stored work” makes double-spending costly and nearly impossible.
Matt Hamilton’s Counterpoint
Former Ripple developer Matt Hamilton responded, comparing PoW to paying an electricity bill. His point was clear—proof of energy use doesn’t automatically create value. Spending energy shows effort, not worth. Vet agreed, stating that Bitcoin’s energy cost, while unrelated to price, serves as a tangible measure of the work done.
The Cost of Security
Independent research from the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance shows Bitcoin’s annual power use in the tens of terawatt-hours. This immense consumption provides economic protection but raises environmental concerns.
The expense of reproducing that energy is what keeps Bitcoin’s network secure against attacks.
Can XRP Adopt Proof-of-Work?
Vet suggested introducing PoW to XRP, sparking reactions. Yet the XRP Ledger operates on a consensus model that requires minimal energy. Adding PoW would undermine its efficiency, speed, and sustainability. XRP’s protocol achieves consensus through validators rather than miners, prioritizing low cost and eco-friendly operation.
A Clearer View of Proof-of-Work
Vet’s insight underscores a crucial truth. Bitcoin doesn’t store energy—it proves that energy was used to build and secure its ledger. That distinction defines the essence of Proof-of-Work. Understanding it separates myth from mechanism and clarifies how Bitcoin’s strength comes not from stored energy, but from verifiable effort and cost.