81–90 of 295 posts
That is an absurd amount of energy. This really changes my opinion on this being a feasible currency.
http://blog.zorinaq.com/bitcoin-electricity-consumption/
and the author of that has specific criticisms of the BECI calculation:
On another note: a very large fraction of all bitcoin mining is happening in China and electricity cost there is quite different compared to the USA.
So I seriously question the prime assumption leading to the quoted energy consumption.
The fact that real world energy is expended is the thermodynamic guarantee of the irreversibility of a transaction.
If you have access to the VISA database, and change something, you cannot have the cryptographic proof that it has not been tampered with. At the very best, you trust a VISA root key.
With Bitcoin you trust math and physics, telling that if the whole network has expended 1TWh after my transaction, at least twice that energy will be necessary to reverse it, and the only data i need to prove that, is the blockchain.
You can't compare Bitcoin to Visa. Visa is merely a payment sytem -- a means of transfer of money that already exists. Visa is not money. Bitcoin however is money. As well as being a payment system. 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 an…
>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…
You can't compare Bitcoin to Visa. Visa is merely a payment sytem -- a means of transfer of money that already exists. Visa is not money. Bitcoin however is money. As well as being a payment system. 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 an…
> Gold requires hundreds of dollars per ounce and untold energy to extract. A valid comparison. Gold mining is spending resources to increase the amount of gold in existence, without delivering any other value. > U.S. dollars require the existence of a powerful economy and trillion dollar military to keep the currency secure and desirable. Not a valid comparison. Outside of a few relatively inexpensive activities at…
Bitcoin mining exists to timestamp transactions so that the network can achieve consensus on the state of the ledger. It is designed to use as much energy as possible, so as to make it expensive to cheat.
> Electricity consumed per transaction: 165 kWh Thats about $20 in the US. If a transaction is that expensive, how can this system even work for transactions with a value of that order? Are large transactions "sponsoring" small transactions? What happens if more people use the system for small transactions? Will BTC become unusable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did you mean price will go up? either way it doesn't offset that high cost of use, so if humans here still value efficiency they might find it worthwhile to switch tools.
Energy usage rises if Bitcoins value grows. Miners are mining to get profit. If they will use energy and don't get profit, they will stop mining.
You can't compare Bitcoin to Visa. Visa is merely a payment sytem -- a means of transfer of money that already exists. Visa is not money. Bitcoin however is money. As well as being a payment system. 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 an…
>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…
Volume or value of transactions has nothing to do with the energy expended.
The energy is needed to calculate a mathematic proof that makes sure your transaction cannot be reversed or tampered with.
This mathematic proof on average is calculated every 10 minutes, with no correlation to the number of transactions.
You make a transaction, and if the bitcoin network has expended 1TWh after you sent it, at least 2TWh are needed to reverse that transaction (and/or any other transaction). You can see how over time it becomes impossible, even with unlimited money, to reverse one.
The energy expended is a guarantee of security and immutability. The fact that real world energy is expended is the thermodynamic guarantee of the irreversibility of a transaction. If you have access to the VISA database, and change something, you cannot have the cryptographic proof that it has not been tampered with. At the very best, you trust a VISA root key. With Bitcoin you trust math and physics, telling that i…
Surely even fans can agree there's a level at which it just doesn't make sense any more.