The rules have kept attackers at bay in the nine years since the network got going. Without this process, most computer scientists agree, Bitcoin would not work.

But there is disagreement over the real value of Bitcoin and the network that supports it.

For people who consider Bitcoin nothing more than a speculative bubble — or a speculative bubble that has enabled online drug sales and ransom payments — any new contribution toward global warming is probably not worth it.

But Bitcoin aficionados counter that it has allowed for the creation of the first financial network with no government or company in charge. In countries like Zimbabwe and Argentina, Bitcoin has sometimes provided a more stable place to park money than the local currency. And in countries with more stable economies, Bitcoin has led to a flurry of new investments, jobs and start-up companies.

“Labeling Bitcoin mining as a ‘waste’ is a failure to look at the big picture,” Marc Bevand, a miner and analyst, wrote on his blog. The jobs alone, he added, “are a direct, measurable and positive impact that Bitcoin already made on the economy.”

But even some people who are interested in all that innovation have worried about the enormous electrical use.

Mr. de Vries, who keeps track of the use on the site Digiconomist, estimated that each Bitcoin transaction currently required 80,000 times more electricity to process than each Visa credit card transaction, for example.

“Visa is more centralized,” Mr. de Vries said. “If you really distrust the financial system, maybe that is unattractive. But is that difference really worth the additional energy cost? I think for most people that is probably not worth the case.”