Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

cbeci.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

561–570 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#561

Post by robjan »

mettamage wrote: post #56
Jonnax wrote: post #23

From what I understand bitcoin currently has a $20+ transaction fee with a transaction time takes 60 minutes+ With these issues in addition to the high power consumption, how will Bitcoin become a usable currency?

IMO it isn't. However, I do see a huge for sending large transactions. In that sense, I don't find it too crazy that Tesla is accepting Bitcoin, because buying a Tesla is a large transaction. IMO a niche use though.

If Bitcoin is the future and an antidote to the alleged extreme inflation of the US dollar, it makes more sense to buy the Tesla in fiat

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#562

Post by j3th9n »

Nursie wrote: post #532
reedf1 wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the cost of an off-chain transaction? Actually, you're right, that's not worth mentioning because that doesn't fit with your argument.

Well that would be double, as you have to set up and tear down the lightning channel with a transaction for each operation...

You clearly don't understand how the Lightning Network works.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#563

Post by godelzilla »

wil421 wrote: post #328
tmoravec wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a potentially revolutionary technology in a very early stage. The important new part, the consensus algorithm, is ground breaking. Now, the very first implementation (Bitcoin) kinda sucks, like most technologies in their first versions. But there are newer generations, each more interesting, and each unlocking more possibilities. We are for example getting: * No-autority enforcement of contracts (Ethereum)…

Bitcoin is over a decade old by now. It’s certainly not become a revolutionary technology and is not in its infancy.

They're talking more generally about cryptographic protocols which have advanced far beyond bitcoin.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#564

Post by newswasboring »

acec wrote: post #533
sharpneli wrote: post #440

At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery. That's 350km/220 miles of range per charge. In total 1050km or 660 miles of driving. So basically if you want to transfer money and the recipient is closer than 660 miles from you it's more efficient to just get a bunch of bills, drive there…

Nobody ever said that Bitcoin was a efficient system. It has other qualities that worth it.

Every time anyone brings up a problem with Bitcoin someone says this. It seems like bitcoin is not designed for anything but existing.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#565

Post by africanboy »

reedf1 wrote: post #518
sharpneli wrote: post #440

At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery. That's 350km/220 miles of range per charge. In total 1050km or 660 miles of driving. So basically if you want to transfer money and the recipient is closer than 660 miles from you it's more efficient to just get a bunch of bills, drive there…

And the cost of an off-chain transaction? Actually, you're right, that's not worth mentioning because that doesn't fit with your argument.

what are you referring to?

off chain operations don't need to spend a lot of energy to validate transactions.

AFAIK globally the banking system estimated energy consumption amounts to ~100 terrawatt of power annually

that amount includes ATMs, servers and branch offices

EDIT: I forgot how touchy people on BC threads could be.

The data on energy consumption of banking system was cited from a post of a BC advocate

Statista has published data for transaction costs of 2020

https://www.statista.com/statistics/881541/bitcoin-energy-co...

What's interesting to me, on a human level, is the way people in the BC World keep moving the goalpost, one day they are greener because the total absolute power consumption is lower (regardless of users - I remember when in 2019 BC consumed more energy than Switzerland), then when it's not better in absolute anymore, BC is greener because is powered by renewables, like renewables were only available to BC miners, now that BC power consumption is going up (and fast) and banking is going down (slowly) it's ok, because it's the price to pay for freedom and everybody should be happy, even though they don't care about bitcoins etc. etc.

Funny, indeed.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#566

Post by ric2b »

gnramires wrote: post #524
nickpp wrote: post #332

How much energy does watching porn consume? Playing video games? Watching a movie? Browsing Facebook? Using a ski chair? Visiting an amusement park? Going in vacation? Cooking your favorite type of food? Making ice cream? Driving to your friends? Listening to music? Concerts? Having a party? Banking? Casinos? As a species we use energy to meet our goals. Those goals may be situated anywhere in our hierarchy of needs.…

The problem is that Bitcoin doesn't need to use this much energy. We've now discovered distributed consensus algorithms that don't rely on Proof of Work, so it's really quite terrible we still waste so much by using an outdated consensus algorithm.

I'm not aware of any other consensus algorithm that is proven to be as secure as PoW.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#567

Post by j3th9n »

sharpneli wrote: post #440

At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery. That's 350km/220 miles of range per charge. In total 1050km or 660 miles of driving. So basically if you want to transfer money and the recipient is closer than 660 miles from you it's more efficient to just get a bunch of bills, drive there…

What about all those Lightning Network transactions on top of Bitcoin?

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#568

Post by ctdonath »

nickpp wrote: post #332

How much energy does watching porn consume? Playing video games? Watching a movie? Browsing Facebook? Using a ski chair? Visiting an amusement park? Going in vacation? Cooking your favorite type of food? Making ice cream? Driving to your friends? Listening to music? Concerts? Having a party? Banking? Casinos? As a species we use energy to meet our goals. Those goals may be situated anywhere in our hierarchy of needs.…

Excellent questions with interesting answers. OP’s observation begins a fascinating discussion. I’ve been roughing out minimal cost of living, finding baseline around 5¢/hr; need to re-cast to kWh units.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#569

Post by z3t4 »

sharpneli wrote: post #440

At that rate and assuming 4tx per second a single Bitcoin transaction consumes 165kWh. A Tesla battery is bit over 50kWh. So let's round that to 3 full charges of Tesla battery. That's 350km/220 miles of range per charge. In total 1050km or 660 miles of driving. So basically if you want to transfer money and the recipient is closer than 660 miles from you it's more efficient to just get a bunch of bills, drive there…

Energy is the ultimate currency. A bitcoin transfer is cheap considering the amount of energy it takes, and its also cheaper then a bank transfer. Visa is overcharging if it takes such little energy.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#570

Post by godelzilla »

grey-area wrote: post #305
hobofan wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Determining fully decentralized consensus between arbitrary participants (or at least one of the best approximations of that). In Bitcoin that consensus is limited to transactions, in Ethereum with smart contracts it can be used for much more (though that might require additional layers of incentivation to work properly, depending on the use case).

Nobody actually wants fully decentralised irreversible consensus between arbitrary participants on a public ledger because it is slow, costly and doesn’t solve real-word problems of identity verification, trust, reversible transactions, private transactions etc etc. People have tried and failed for years to find a compelling use for it. It’s a very interesting experiment in social engineering but I find it difficult…

>slow, costly and doesn’t solve real-word problems of identity verification, trust, reversible transactions, private transactions etc etc.

I strongly recommend researching cryptographic protocols besides bitcoin.

Post reply on HN