111–120 of 381 posts
There is a lot of ignorance going around here. Bitcoin SV is cheaper because it can handle vastly more transactions per block, making it more efficient. Bitcoin SV believes in unrestricted scalability. Yes mostly this means miners will tend to agglomerate, and specialize I to big data center. Well know public entities that must follow law. but we believe all miners also have an incentive to not let any other gros pas…
Interesting but I’m not sure of the point. PoW by design is not energy efficient. The incentive is just not in the correct place. Interesting but if the goal is to show more energy efficient coins we need to be looking at different tech such as PoS. Although this might have just been a fun project someone put together in which case nice job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's proportional to the value a miner is awarded (ie: block reward + transaction fess) for mining a block not the price of the coin. Saying it is the price of the coin is like saying Berkshire Hathaway is worth more than Apple because their share price is a lot higher.
No, I think you misunderstand. The rewards are predictable, and fees are generally a tiny fraction of the total reward (a few percent or less). The exchange rate vs the price of electricity is what determines whether it's profitable to consume electricity to hash for a PoW chain. There are some efficiency hacks like merged mining that improve the situation a bit, but essentially the person you're downvoting is totall…
Txs / MWh is not a valid metric for most cryptocurrencies since power consumption is proportional to price, not transactions. Also, BSV and BCH are totally insecure so it's not really fair to compare them to secure cryptocurrencies.
As a Bitcoin miner ( https://toom.im ), while I appreciate the work put into it, this particular metric of "transactions per kW" might not work the way you expect. The main point that you should understand is that a PoW blockchain's energy usage is not proportional to its transactions. I'll say that a different way: the transactions themselves do not use any energy in mining. I'll say this in a third way: it takes ex…
That's a very dubious way of looking at it. Blockchains all have a bottleneck. All transactions in the world have to go through the miner. And the situation is actually worse than that because we don't know who will solve the useless Proof of Work hashcash function ahead of time, so EVERY potential transaction is gossipped to EVERY potential miner, and then the miners ALL go to town wasting electricity. How great! An…
As a Bitcoin miner ( https://toom.im ), while I appreciate the work put into it, this particular metric of "transactions per kW" might not work the way you expect. The main point that you should understand is that a PoW blockchain's energy usage is not proportional to its transactions. I'll say that a different way: the transactions themselves do not use any energy in mining. I'll say this in a third way: it takes ex…
Reference: https://hbr.org/2021/05/how-much-energy-does-bitcoin-actuall...
Interesting but I’m not sure of the point. PoW by design is not energy efficient. The incentive is just not in the correct place. Interesting but if the goal is to show more energy efficient coins we need to be looking at different tech such as PoS. Although this might have just been a fun project someone put together in which case nice job.
The amount of energy a PoW coin uses entirely depends on the cost of electricity, hardware, and profitability. When a coin spikes in value, the profitability goes up so more miners join in. A single PC would have enough processing power to run the bitcoin network. All of this power usage goes towards solving useless tasks which get more difficult the more people there are trying to solve them.
> It is great to see effort being put into researching cleaner alternatives. Unfortunately, there is no working PoS-based system that does not rely on some degree of centralization in its security model. This is false. See Algorand, Cardano, Mina, etc. Proof-of-work is very much a technology of the past. It's the fossil fuel of cryptocurrencies.
[1]: https://www.algorand.com/resources/news/carbon_negative_anno...
As a Bitcoin miner ( https://toom.im ), while I appreciate the work put into it, this particular metric of "transactions per kW" might not work the way you expect. The main point that you should understand is that a PoW blockchain's energy usage is not proportional to its transactions. I'll say that a different way: the transactions themselves do not use any energy in mining. I'll say this in a third way: it takes ex…
On your website that you linked says "We conduct our business in a way that protects ... our planet's climate against warming." Can you elaborate how providing infra to mine Bitcoin is helping the planet against global warming? Aren't you doing the exact opposite? If you are using 100% green energy, that energy can be used for something productive not providing PoW. Note Bitcoin alone currently consumes 0.55% of worl…
A decentralized/borderless/censorship-resistant/virtual currency is one of the most productive things we can use energy for. It might not be as apparent in the US or the developed world, but Bitcoin is a life-saver for many people in countries with crumbling currencies. We waste a lot of energy on things that are far more more useless (like christmas lights for example[1]).
We should just put carbon tax on everything with environmental side effects and let the market decides what's a productive use case vs one that isn't.
1: https://bitcoinist.com/bitcoin-mining-energy-consumption-us-...