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

Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

bitcoin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 287 posts

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#271

Post by qwytw »

GoblinSlayer wrote: post #209
qwytw wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 285,418 bitcoin transactions* in the last 24 hours, bitcoin energy consumption is estimated to be around 76.87 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.210603 twh per day. So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price…

Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.

Unless it's in a grid in which a 100% of all energy is renewable that's not that relevant because lowering total energy consumption would it make possible to decrease production in fossil fuel power plants.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#272

Post by qwytw »

benlivengood wrote: post #187
qwytw wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There were 285,418 bitcoin transactions* in the last 24 hours, bitcoin energy consumption is estimated to be around 76.87 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.210603 twh per day. So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price…

> So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying... From the same site, mean transaction value is 2.67 BTC ($86,672 USD), so about .1% transaction fee. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-perce…

Yeah your point about it being a fairly low % of average transaction value is valid, the % is highly dependant on the current market price of bitcoin, though.

The $73 is not strictly related to the transfers fees but rather to how much it costs to mine a single bitcoin. If the total numbers of transactions were to decrease by 99% the energy cost per transaction would be $7300 but that wouldn't mean that transfers fees would increase that much or at all (if I understand how btc transfers work correctly it should decrease since there would be less people bidding) as long mining bitcoin remains profitable.

If currently 900 coins are generated per day, the cost to generate 1 bitcoin (234003kWh at $0.1 per kWh and using the yearly energy consumption value) is $23,400 in addition to that miners also received 150 coins from transaction fees in the last 24 hours. So if 150 dropped to ~0 the number of miners should only decrease by 14% to maintain the same profit margins.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#273

Post by whoisjohnkid »

randomopining wrote: post #264
whoisjohnkid wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

no way to tell for sure, but the stock to flow model has been pretty accurate over the years and it projects around $90k+ by year end ... institutions like PayPal are buying directly from miners, others are applying with SEC to buy BTC for their funds ... price looks shaky, but the big players seem confident in the fundamentals ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or are they just getting in to be the ones selling the axes during the gold rush?

There’s definitely multiple ways to make money as an institution and yeah this is a possibility as well.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#274

Post by uncletammy »

grubles wrote: post #248
uncletammy wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gavin admitted he should have been removed because he stopped contributing Citation desperately needed. Here's a contribution from literally the day before he had his commit access stolen. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/006cdf64dc932 Even if he did say that, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Him "no longer contributing" was not the reason his commit access was revoked. It was revoked as a power grab be…

His access was revoked because having unused keys to the Bitcoin code is an attack vector. Citation here BTW: https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1247592193319198720

> His access was revoked because having unused keys to the Bitcoin code is an attack vector.

Yes I agree this was the public justification for it. That being said, I'm certain they wouldn't have acted in the same way if it had been Luke jr or Greg Maxwell. They pulled his access because he wanted bigger blocks and he was ruining the official narrative.

I believe your citation but the point still stands.

And for future reference, a citation isn't generally accepted when it's just a screenshot you posted in a tweet you once made where the screenshot reveals a comment to a random reddit post with no visible url in it.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#275

Post by aYsY4dDQ2NrcNzA »

mleonhard wrote: post #265
vmception wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, he failed to produce any keys, the courier with the keys never materialized, the judge has not thrown Craig Wright in jail for contempt of court nor has be been charged with perjury. The judge seems to be mildly entertained by this and views Craig Wright as mentally ill, but won't have him committed. It is all sad and strange. There are a lot of guardrails against using the system this way, but they aren't being…

When a mentally-unstable person uses the courts improperly, the court can label them "vexatious litigant" [0]. Then they must receive permission from a judge to file any new lawsuits. Courts don't do such things quickly. It's not the job of courts to force people into the care of the a mental institution. The government must petition the court for permission to do that and show that the person is a danger to themselv…

Nitpicking here, but does Australia use the same legal standard for involuntary commitment?

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#276

Post by ChainOfFools »

Scoundreller wrote: post #76
sedeki wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a hardcore bitcoiner, but the price would fall quickly if these few controlling nodes would do something malicious. Which is against their own interest.

Probably. But a core aspect of decentralization is that you shouldn’t need to trust a few others at all.

In Trust we trust!

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#277

Post by chansiky »

Thorentis wrote: post #210

He seems like somebody who is very concerned with taking credit for things. And not just in a "hey, I made that!" kind of way, but in a "I will sue people who say I didn't make it. " [0] kind of way. This alone is enough for me dismiss his claims. Satoshi clearly intentionally wanted to remain unknown. It might be a real name, but it likely isn't. There was plenty of opportunity to reveal himself. Now that BTC is sud…

In a world of billions there are bound to be a few truly delusional people.

Given the evidence, I'm convinced he's one of them.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#278

Post by GoblinSlayer »

qwytw wrote: post #271
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.

Unless it's in a grid in which a 100% of all energy is renewable that's not that relevant because lowering total energy consumption would it make possible to decrease production in fossil fuel power plants.

That's a hypothesis, real mining is fixed in objective reality and is not affected by hypotheses.

Re: Bitcoincore.org removes Satoshi's whitepaper from website after threats from CSW

#279

Post by GoblinSlayer »

arcticbull wrote: post #255
GoblinSlayer wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.

Yeah, no, it simply does not. Citation needed.

It's also on the original claimant to prove that mining runs on CO2 energy.
Post reply on HN