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

681–690 of 1001 posts

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#681

Post by sparkie »

enraged_camel wrote: post #364
AnonsLadder wrote: post #333

It's hilarious to see the naysayers about Bitcoin say that BTC is not usable. Now it's worth almost 50 grand and all they can come up with is expensive transaction fees which in hindsight, are really not that expensive, and the energy consumption of maintaining the Bitcoin network. It sure is a lot better than using human lives, usually & most likely forced labor, to mine real Gold. Right? After all, energy is free w…

>>It sure is a lot better than using human lives, usually & most likely forced labor, to mine real Gold. Right? Bitcoin is purported to be an alternative to fiat money, not gold. And most governments can print fiat money at will, with virtually no energy.

The State printing fiat money is essentially stealing time from people who have laboured to create wealth. That wealth is pilfered through devaluing the money supply, with those close to central bank who receive the new money first benefiting from it.

Bitcoin fixes this theft problem, and demand for it will continue to increase for as long as this theft occurs.

The only way bitcoin can be stopped is if central banks start contracting the supply of their money, which you and I know will never happen.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#682

Post by fastball »

newswasboring wrote: post #630
pawsed wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't exactly an rebuttal to your argument, but 74% of energy that Bitcoin used to power it's network was renewable energy [1], that's more than you can say for most countries. While the network itself is inefficient, I think the philosophy of "why bitcoin", is always amiss in these arguments. Everything can be made more efficient. Edit: 39% of energy used is renewable, not really sure how that doesn't matter. […

Read two paragraphs below what in your own link. >However, the CCAF’s report specifies that the 76% refers to the share of hashers who use renewable energy at any point. It estimates that only 39% of hashing’s total energy consumption comes from renewables. > Behind hydroelectricity, coal (38%) and natural gas (36%) are the energy sources hashers favour most.

Yes, but only because electricity from those sources is cheaper. Green up the grid (pls nuclear) and no problems.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#683

Post by spathi_fwiffo »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #478
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.…

>How much energy does watching porn consume? I guess if you got stats on how much porn they watch in Argentina you would be well on your way to answering this question. Same for the rest. I think the more interesting thing is: as bitcoin becomes more difficult to mine energy needs go up, but countries are working hard to bring their energy usage down. Can bitcoin be overtaken on the downward journey by a country, or…

Stats not even needed.

If the enegry used in Argentina and, if people living in Argentina are doing any of the things listed (watching porn, etc).

Then the energy used to watch all the porn in Argentina must still be included as part of the Energy use of Argentina; thus less than the use of bitcoin. (I guess this would have to assume the porn is also hosted in Argentina; but I would imagine at least 1 porn unit is hosted and viewed internally to Argentina).

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#684

Post by mint2 »

panarky wrote: post #668
lmkg wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficient way to mine, the correct decision is not to reduce your energy usage, but rather to use the same amount of energy to compute more hashes.

The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. Bitcoin is the…

> without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments

And conversely too! letting corrupt governments and corporations transfer money with ease!

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#685

Post by lacker »

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…

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.

This seems like a roundabout way to analyze efficiency. A simpler way is just to look at how much it costs in dollars, rather than trying to convert everything into energy units.

It varies but over the past couple months a Bitcoin transaction has cost from $7-$20.

source: https://ycharts.com/indicators/bitcoin_average_transaction_f...

That is more than it costs to power a Tesla driving 400 miles, yes, but the cost of that activity is dwarfed by the cost of the driver. You are missing all the energy it takes to create a human with the skills to drive a car, pay for their opportunity cost, and keep them alive for the time it takes to drive for 400 miles ;-)

It's also more expensive than an electronic funds transfer, but it's comparable in price to wire fees, so it just depends on the details of your financial transfer whether it was efficient.

Overall though that $20 fee is generally going to be dwarfed by the utility that a large financial transfer brings. It would be nice if it was cheaper but this doesn't seem like it's insanely wasteful or anything. It's really just demonstrating that it will be hard for Bitcoin to perform in small-value transactions like making a purchase at a retail store, in a way that people once thought it would.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#686

Post by totheloop »

Taek wrote: post #500
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…

The energy that goes into a Bitcoin transaction doesn't just pay for the one transaction. It also pays for the security of all the value stored in the rest of the system, and that's actually where most of the revenue for mining comes from - inflation, not fees. But also, Bitcoin transactions aren't typically buying coffee from your local store. It's very often international, and Bitcoin transactions offer a finality…

You mean deflation, incidentally.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#687

Post by meow112012 »

aeternum wrote: post #650
lmkg wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficient way to mine, the correct decision is not to reduce your energy usage, but rather to use the same amount of energy to compute more hashes.

By computing more hashes, you raise the difficulty for everyone else mining so you do ultimately push out the less efficient miners.

If someone has money and power already, they can take a better chance to get more bitcoin. How about the other guys and the other guys ... 10/20 years later?

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#688

Post by cesarb »

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.…

> 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?

The difference is that, for all of these, the incentive is to lower the energy usage. For Bitcoin, the incentive is to increase the energy usage, until the amount of energy used costs the same as the amount of Bitcoin received by the miners.

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#689

Post by francoi8 »

sharpneli wrote: post #646
rattlesnakedave wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Visa kWh figure includes all that. The office workers and whatnot. The source is Visa corporate responsibility data. https://usa.visa.com/dam/VCOM/download/corporate-responsibil... that's for 2019. They include air travel and whatnot. Basically the whole energy consumption of the company. Also including building stuff etc. Visa doesn't share that in order to poke at Bitcoin. They share that because enviromentalis…

Back of the envelope calculations for the yearly operation of:

- Visa: 7 million GJ

- Bitcoin: 403 million GJ

Re: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index

#690

Post by TomVDB »

panarky wrote: post #668
lmkg wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My issue with it is even more fundamental than this: it is structurally impossible for Proof of Work to become more efficient. If you find a more energy-efficient way to mine, the correct decision is not to reduce your energy usage, but rather to use the same amount of energy to compute more hashes.

The energy-per-transaction ratio is only relevant if the utility of Bitcoin is to compete with Visa to process transactions. However, if the ultimate utility of Bitcoin is to store trillions of dollars of value, transmit it into the future, across borders, quickly, pseudonymously, and without capital controls from coercive and corrupt governments, then energy-per-transaction is an inappropriate metric. Bitcoin is the…

There are industries with less social utility than Bitcoin?
Post reply on HN