That's right. A MacBook user would want to know how this daemon would affect the longevity of his or her device.
My own guess is that heat cycling is more detrimental than relatively constant (but below thresholds) usage.
>There may be a time when we think of computer power as money — Bitcoin is pushing us that way — and we give back by donating a few calculations at a time.
Actually, can't we think of a low/competitively priced resource as a donation? Why can't contributors be compensated? Not thoroughly accounting for value contributed to networks is part of the reason for decreasing employment prospects. Users are taking risk (by spending their time creating value) and uploading it without compensation.
>most of the power consumed by the traditional financial system is spent in its capacity as a ubiquitous pillar of modern society
Either I missed your point or it would be nice if you brought this back down to Earth. Yes, traditional ledgers help mediate economic exchanges. Bitcoin, as a ledger system, also helps mediate economic exchanges.
> ... wherein bitcoin would be completely subsumed were it to become anything more than a technical novelty.
You put this forward like we should all nod and say of course. Care to tell us about this scenario?
“The nature of these companies is what’s changed.”
Jaron Lanier calls this nature "sirenic." Shrinking markets is the business of Siren Servers.
We mostly notice how these companies seem to do more with less (with automation) but Lanier argues that the shrinking of markets is more closely associated with incomplete accounting of value (and its origination).
Think about all the users of "fake free" systems contributing value without formal compensation.
It's not simply that automation is obviating human effort but rather humans are contributing value (e.g. by being monitored and tallied or uploading creative work) and absorbing most of the risk of the venture.