Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index • Hacker News Board

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#601

Post by sharpneli » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:13 PM UTC

deeeeplearning wrote: post #597

kqr wrote: post #546

And this is not surprising. Cryptocurrency is designed to be anti-efficient. "Proof of work" is just a synonym for "having wasted tons of energy." This is my main beef with these systems. Gaining fundamental value from the act of wasting energy and being the one to accelerate the (local) heat death by the most is not a sensible basis for a 21st century technology.

Most newer cryptos are built on proof of stake. So your criticism is mainly aimed at Btc.

Naturally. While POS cryptos share many other bad sides with Bitcoin at least they don't ruin the planet so they're far far better.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#602

Post by Rallerbabs » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

kybernetikos wrote: post #406

Rallerbabs wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Follow the big money. Michael Saylor from Microstrategies: $1B. Elon Musk from Tesla: $1.5B. GrayScale: not sure how many dollars, but they own >550,000 bitcoins. Big money is of the opinion that bitcoin is an excellent store of value. Only a matter of time before it becomes a medium of exchange. And later on, a unit of account. By that time, you won't be asking yourself what 1 bitcoin is worth anymore. Things will b…

> Only a matter of time before it becomes a medium of exchange. It is impossible for BTC to become a medium of exchange without significant technical upgrades that the core developers have so far been hostile to. Although it was a goal of the original bitcoin project (and continues to be for BCH and others), it is not a goal of the BTC community and it is incredibly unlikely that it will ever happen.

Utter baloney. Lightning Network will deliver.

As for BTC vs BCH... the market has spoken: BTC is the one, true bitcoin.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#603

Post by rattlesnakedave » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

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…

You are leaving out significant amounts of energy consumed in the legacy financial system.

Those bills cost energy to produce. The bank had to be built. There was a teller there, did they spend any energy driving to the bank that day? Did you use a duffel bag? Where’d that come from? Etc.

I’m not sure that any of this is meaningful in any way.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#604

Post by ric2b » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:14 PM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #468

px43 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hey there. I'm one of those people who read Schneier's Applied Cryptography in highschool in the 90s, and immediately recognized the groundbreaking potential of using asymmetric cryptography for currency. I work in information security, and have seen first hand how our existing financial infrastructure is held together with string and scotch tape. For 10 years or so, every time I heard about some big credit card thef…

Maybe you can help me out, then? How does the network increase the transaction rate to current global rates (at least 10^4 higher)? What happens when the mining phase completes, or if there is a drop in value? What is a sustainable transaction fee for miners to take absent mining incentives? What happens over long periods of time from hardware failures where wallets are lost? It's probably my problem not researching…

> How does the network increase the transaction rate to current global rates (at least 10^4 higher)?

Efficiency improvements on the base chain, 2nd layer technologies like Lightning Network and ultimately increasing the base block size limit.

> What happens when the mining phase completes, or if there is a drop in value?

Mining doesn't "complete". There have been many massive drops in value in Bitcoin's history, not sure what you're asking about, it just keeps working?

> What is a sustainable transaction fee for miners to take absent mining incentives?

Anything above 0 is sustainable, you can mine for free if you're using the energy to heat your house.

The question is how much energy the network needs to spend to remain secure, that I don't know, depends on how much any potential attackers are willing to spend to attack it.

> What happens over long periods of time from hardware failures where wallets are lost?

Bitcoin deflates? If some coins are lost but demand remains the same the value of the remaining coins goes up.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#605

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:15 PM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#606

Post by pcarolan » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

I sold out of my position because of the energy consumption but more importantly that bitcoin feels now like it's 100% dependent on greater fools. Like a pyramid scheme, those who buy now must convince others to buy later to increase their wealth. It seems that momentum is the real driver of bitcoin price now not value. The end result is massive inequality especially as institutional investors buy in and the marketing gears begin to wind up. At least with an inflationary currency like USD, there's an incentive to work and put your money to work. Bitcoin feels like it mostly rewards the hoarders.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#607

Post by meirelles » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:16 PM UTC

It's not about today, but tomorrow. Inefficiency is way easier to fix than break paradigms. How much it spends per transaction now isn't that relevant.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#608

Post by j3th9n » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

sharpneli wrote: post #599

j3th9n wrote: post #567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

https://bitcoinvisuals.com/lightning No information on actual transactions performed. But in practice the lightning network is tiny and stagnant. If it would actually be used it would perhaps be more relevant, but it really doesn't seem to be. Except as an excuse for the bad efficiency.

That's because of the nature of the Lightning Network. You can only see transactions going through your own LN node, if you run one. Only the opened LN channels are visible for everyone.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#609

Post by xirbeosbwo1234 » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

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…

I have often seen people saying things like "Bitcoin is orders of magnitude less efficient than Visa". While true, it's kind of like saying "the Atlantic Ocean is orders of magnitude bigger than my swimming pool".

Bitcoin is six orders of magnitude less efficient than Visa. Six.

And it's getting worse every day.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#610

Post by josalhor » Wed, Feb 10, 2021, 4:17 PM UTC

mikepurvis wrote: post #376

josalhor wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a huge potential in cryptocurrencies, just not in Bitcoin per se. I can totally see the European Central Bank controlling some kind of CryptoEuro that is tied to the real euro and allows individuals to make transactions without banks. Banks would become an optional frontend on this transaction system, with security features built-in, etc.

I don't think most normal people see "without banks" as a feature. Indeed, banks have already been peering with each other on transaction-clearing since forever, and I don't think it would take much for the EU to mandate a particular set of common APIs and maybe some entry criteria that allow increasingly smaller players access to the already-existing framework. All of this seems a lot easier and cheaper than bitcoin…

> I don't think most normal people see "without banks" as a feature.

The other day I walked into a shop where I couldn't pay by card because the banks didn't provide the service to them. Users don't see "without banks" as a feature, but businesses will. It will reduce their fees and their dependency to the whole industry.