Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

Post by decentralised » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 5:00 AM UTC

pdpi wrote: post #145

spiorf wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I repeat, you got it very wrong. Transaction number is not correlated with mining energy expenditure. Mining is used to secure the ledger in a way that the same amount of energy is needed to alter it. The block hash begins with a number of zeros. Try for yourself how many tries it takes to find a string that hashes to a hash beginning with 3 zeros. Bitcoin block hashes begin with 13 or 14 zeros IIRC. This means that…

> Transaction number is not correlated with mining energy expenditure. You're only kind of right. The mining algorithm cares not one bit about number of transactions, so higher tx volume has no direct effect on the mining energy expenditure. But it does have a second order effect. More transactions usually entails higher fees (as people compete for block space to put their transactions in). More fees means higher min…

Post by sowbug » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 5:26 AM UTC

decentralised wrote: post #220

Why don't we compare Bitcoin's energy footprint with that of all the banks, remittance shops and associated infrastructure instead? The PoW is quite expensive, but remember that mining is a subsidised activity amounting to billions of dollars worth of rewards for the miners, many of whom make extensive use of hydro-electric and solar power. There's the question of wether we need all this hashing power to protect the…

Post by nunyabuizness » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 5:45 AM UTC

mrb wrote: post #221

quinndupont wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin wants to be money, but it really isn't. It fails the traditional account (originally from Jevons); see Kubát 2015 [1]; Mandjee 2015 [2]. More obviously, it is far too volatile to function like money in a normal sense, see Golumbia 2017 [3] [1] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212567115... [2] https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?actio... [3] https://motherboard.vice.com/en_…

And yet some people, like me, use Bitcoin to buy products and services. Your articles merely explain that Bitcoin legally is not money. But in practice it is used as money, it is seen as money, so it is money. Practice trumps theory. Also these articles fail to mention that volatility is quickly decreasing, thanks to increasing market depths: https://mobile.twitter.com/lsukernik/status/8649208737189519...

Post by mrb » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 6:18 AM UTC

mcv wrote: post #197

hwillis wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The correct comparison would be to compare the cost of Bitcoin to U.S. dollars or gold. Gold requires hundreds of dollars per ounce and untold energy to extract. U.S. dollars require the existence of a powerful economy and trillion dollar military to keep the currency secure and desirable. No it isn't- the energy cost of bitcoin is ongoing and depends on the volume of transactions. Each time money changes hands, it…

If a single bitcoin transaction uses enough energy to power 5 households for a day, that certainly makes me not want to do any bitcoin transactions anymore. I knew it was wasteful, but this article is really putting it into perspective. And because of the proof-of-work system, the wastefulness is intentional; you have to prove you've wasted enough time and energy to be allowed to mine a bitcoin.

Post by Taek » Sun, Aug 27, 2017, 6:26 AM UTC

adventured wrote: post #213

Taek wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I meant only to imply that the US military alone is about 3.5% of our economy, and that the protection to value ratio there is about 1:30 I did not mean to imply that bitcoin could replace the entire military, only that the ratio of spending vs. assets defended is better.

The protection to value ratio is drastically beyond 1:30. Your value calculation is worthless if it only takes into account annual GDP. The total value of the United States, all assets, private and public, is closer to $250+ trillion [1]. That's a 1:400+ ratio. US household assets alone are near $95 - $100 trillion at this point [2]. That's a ~1:160 ratio just for household wealth. You missed by an extreme amount in…