This does not seem to include transactions on the Bitcoin Lightning network which are transaction that are handled offchain so they are not included in blocks. I don't have the exact number of lightning transaction ocurring but it is the Bitcoin Core developers' plan that the scaling to thousand of transactions per second will and should take place on the lightning network (this is where they differ from their compet…
Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
81–90 of 463 posts
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#82Shut it down. Can a couple of these people agree that a well-coordinated merge & release to sabotage proof of work is ethical. https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#83Can someone tell me whether this is ever going to change? When the last bitcoin is mined?
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#84If only governments and corporations did not insist on limiting people's freedom to trade freely and anonymously we wouldn't need that. Just make trading and privacy fundamental human rights like air breathing is and huge amount of energy will be saved.
Didn't realise cash was suddenly outlawed
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#85It says a single transaction generates almost 300kg of CO2. Surely not. 95g of e-waste also seems incredible. And 600 kwh of energy per transaction? Really. Edit: based on a cost of electricity at $0.1/kwh, and assuming bitcoin operators break even and are rational, one transaction costs less than 3kw of energy: https://bitcoinfees.info If it cost 600kwh, we would assume a transaction would cost at least $60. Electri…
If 625 kWh per transaction is accurate, then 300kg CO2 is plausible depending on the grid. Many electric grids emit 500g CO2 per kWh or more. Others are much cleaner depending on the production mix. See: www.electricitymap.org
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm afraid that the moment you chose to use the word "wasteful" it became a philosophical discussion and they don't typically have final words at all. The stripped down reason you see it as wasteful is that you have some set of beliefs about what is "right" and "meaningful" (many of which, I'll take liberty to say, most likely likely NOT consciously thought out) and since the core technical principle behind Bitcoin i…
Or you could say Bitcoin is wasteful because PoS accomplishes the same thing with 99.99% less energy.
PoW utilizes the honest indicator of un-forgeable expense to mitigate this class of risks.
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#87This seems completely outrageous to me. I had seen similar numbers thrown around casually in the past but still found it hard to believe to be true, (despite being pretty bearish on Bitcoin myself). This seems to provide some pretty detailed evidence, analysis and validation directly addressing criticisms. It seems pretty thorough. Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? Or i…
Indeed. Cost of running this public tamper-proof database is $4B + Personnel + Amortizing cost of ASIC Forms, Say $6B Where does the money come from? This Database isn't selling any service to Enterprise or Government or Public to get revenue. So, the $6B money has to come from Bitcoin holders or new suckers. Every year it has to get $6B new money just to maintain the current value of Bitcoin.
The question is not how many you burned, which is what the mining algo answers with such precision, but how much you paid for them in the first place, which it can offer no insight into.
Some possible shortcuts to paying retail prices for electron mining fuel:
1. You're a large business power customer and pay vastly discounted rates on a contract basis.
2. You're stealing some or all of your power, either by pirate wiring or by paying some official to look the other way, or a little of both.
3. Your mining operation is a pork barrel project with funding secured from your local government's (either clueless or remarkably pragmatic) business development office. Sometimes there may be a legitimate exit plan for this, like repurposing the new datacenter facility you built, after wringing every mining penny from it possible, to host cloud services or as the core of some government-sponsored technology park.
4. You may have been mining quite along time and now have enough early coin held back from the $100 days to slowly sell off into the retail market at 80x profit, or borrow against. It may even be that this reserve of held back coin is partly responsible for the thin liquidity in the market, and consequent bubbled-up price.
5. You publicly, or covertly own or have an interest in one or more of the mining pools and public exchanges, and retain a share some of the Tx and conversion fees which helps subsidize the mining costs.
6. Same as above but for mining rig manufacturers and fabs. Mine on newly manufactured chips for a few days or a week before shipping (for 'testing' purposes ofc) and you get to stay ahead of the difficulty curve as well as get free subsidy from your own customers.
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#88Shut it down. Can a couple of these people agree that a well-coordinated merge & release to sabotage proof of work is ethical. https://github.com/orgs/bitcoin/people
A better way would be a global ban coordinated among every nation, and even then that would be difficult to pull off.
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#89This seems completely outrageous to me. I had seen similar numbers thrown around casually in the past but still found it hard to believe to be true, (despite being pretty bearish on Bitcoin myself). This seems to provide some pretty detailed evidence, analysis and validation directly addressing criticisms. It seems pretty thorough. Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? Or i…
> Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? The carbon estimate seems very poor. > Since we know the average emission factor of the Chinese grid (around 700 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent per kilowatt-hour), this can be used for a very rough approximation of the carbon intensity of the power used for Bitcoin mining. The reason many miners are in China is that they can acces…
Setting aside the non-trivial ecological damage caused by dams.... all that renewable energy could have been used to power something that actually adds value to society. Instead it is getting flushed down the toilet solving useless math problems so that a relative handful of people can milk a larger set of rubes for all their money. Oh, and enable criminals to continue their criminal behavior....
Re: Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index
#90This seems completely outrageous to me. I had seen similar numbers thrown around casually in the past but still found it hard to believe to be true, (despite being pretty bearish on Bitcoin myself). This seems to provide some pretty detailed evidence, analysis and validation directly addressing criticisms. It seems pretty thorough. Is there any more to discuss on the topic of Bitcoin being outrageously wasteful? Or i…
I'm afraid that the moment you chose to use the word "wasteful" it became a philosophical discussion and they don't typically have final words at all. The stripped down reason you see it as wasteful is that you have some set of beliefs about what is "right" and "meaningful" (many of which, I'll take liberty to say, most likely likely NOT consciously thought out) and since the core technical principle behind Bitcoin i…