6 ms·

For comparison, how much power does Visa, Mastercard, the Federal Reserve (and its printing presses), banks, and all of the buildings and employees that work in

For comparison, how much power does Visa, Mastercard, the Federal Reserve (and its printing presses), banks, and all of the buildings and employees that work in the traditional financial sector use? Now think about that in every single country on this planet. It's a lot more than 40MW. The Bitcoin network is a steal by comparison.

homogeneous 11y ago
You're comparing the microscopic bitcoin economy to the financial infrastructure that services the entire planet; it's a ridiculous comparison. How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second?
- astrodust 11y ago
  Given how people use tap-to-pay type services for vending machines and bus fare, that might be a low estimate on volume.
- SolarNet 11y ago
  Well a miner like the one going live is also responsible for managing the transaction volume. So the capacity of Bitcoin to manage many more transactions just went up.
  - davidgerard 11y ago
    No, this is completely incorrect: the transaction rate limit is inherent in the protocol. You could do it with an increase in the block size, but the Bitcoinsphere has bitterly resisted all attempts to increase the block size.
- CyberDildonics 11y ago
  > How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second? It would stay almost the same since the hashing power is not connected to the number of transactions. Also by the way, no one does tens of millions of transactions per second, visa does something like 40,000 at their absolute peak.
  - gritzko 11y ago
    No, no, no. The amount of power wasted by BitCoin indirectly depends on the monetary turnover of the system. Because if somebody can spend $1mln to perform 51% attack and move around $1bln, that will likely be done. Hence, the power wasted is proportional to the turnover of the system. Otherwise, it does not work. Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted.
    - ikeboy 11y ago
      No, it's proportional to the value of the coins used as reward. If there's high turnover, that might lead to bitcoin's price increasing and therefore higher energy costs. Also, high turnover may lead to higher fees, increasing the reward. If the high turnover is done between trusted parties, or with settlement time, then it doesn't matter to security. It needs to be people accepting large amounts from strangers/untrusted counter-parties and giving stuff for it immediately. But usually, if I send someone $1000, they can wait 3 hours for security. >Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. When a bank has lights on, burns fuel to send an armored truck around, etc, that's also wasted.
    - exo762 11y ago
      > Because if somebody can spend $1mln to perform 51% attack and move around $1bln, that will likely be done. This attack allows double spending and censorship. It does not allow to directly steal someone's BTC. > Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. And horses are pissed at cars. > The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted. No, it is not. It buys security in a way which traditional banking is not capable of providing.
    - BlackFly 11y ago
      Actually that 1% normally will go to paying the electricity bills for the bank back end systems and the fraud analysis algorithms. On top of that they need to pay for fraud insurance. The power spent on bitcoin is not analogous to these costs, it is equivalent. The question is, is bitcoin more cost effective at preventing specific types of fraud?
- wernercd 11y ago
  Agreed... lets keep it in terms we all understand and that make sense... How many libraries of congress can they power with 40MW?
- tveita 11y ago
  > How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second? There is no way to do this calculation. At the moment Bitcoin mining uses, let's say 150MW and can do around 4 transactions per second. If you gave the network a 1000 times more hashing power, you'd be using 150GW, and could handle... around 4 transactions per second.
sanswork 11y ago
The federal reserve has no printing presses. VISA can process 10,000x as many transactions per second as Bitcoin and banks do a lot more than transferring funds.

homogeneous 11y ago

You're comparing the microscopic bitcoin economy to the financial infrastructure that services the entire planet; it's a ridiculous comparison. How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second?

astrodust 11y ago
Given how people use tap-to-pay type services for vending machines and bus fare, that might be a low estimate on volume.
SolarNet 11y ago
Well a miner like the one going live is also responsible for managing the transaction volume. So the capacity of Bitcoin to manage many more transactions just went up.
- davidgerard 11y ago
  No, this is completely incorrect: the transaction rate limit is inherent in the protocol. You could do it with an increase in the block size, but the Bitcoinsphere has bitterly resisted all attempts to increase the block size.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
> How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second? It would stay almost the same since the hashing power is not connected to the number of transactions. Also by the way, no one does tens of millions of transactions per second, visa does something like 40,000 at their absolute peak.
- gritzko 11y ago
  No, no, no. The amount of power wasted by BitCoin indirectly depends on the monetary turnover of the system. Because if somebody can spend $1mln to perform 51% attack and move around $1bln, that will likely be done. Hence, the power wasted is proportional to the turnover of the system. Otherwise, it does not work. Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted.
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    No, it's proportional to the value of the coins used as reward. If there's high turnover, that might lead to bitcoin's price increasing and therefore higher energy costs. Also, high turnover may lead to higher fees, increasing the reward. If the high turnover is done between trusted parties, or with settlement time, then it doesn't matter to security. It needs to be people accepting large amounts from strangers/untrusted counter-parties and giving stuff for it immediately. But usually, if I send someone $1000, they can wait 3 hours for security. >Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. When a bank has lights on, burns fuel to send an armored truck around, etc, that's also wasted.
  - exo762 11y ago
    > Because if somebody can spend $1mln to perform 51% attack and move around $1bln, that will likely be done. This attack allows double spending and censorship. It does not allow to directly steal someone's BTC. > Also, when a bank charges me 1% for a wire transfer, they pay salaries from that money and some people buy food. And horses are pissed at cars. > The power burnt by BitCoin is actually literally immediately irrecoverably physically wasted. No, it is not. It buys security in a way which traditional banking is not capable of providing.
  - BlackFly 11y ago
    Actually that 1% normally will go to paying the electricity bills for the bank back end systems and the fraud analysis algorithms. On top of that they need to pay for fraud insurance. The power spent on bitcoin is not analogous to these costs, it is equivalent. The question is, is bitcoin more cost effective at preventing specific types of fraud?
wernercd 11y ago
Agreed... lets keep it in terms we all understand and that make sense... How many libraries of congress can they power with 40MW?
tveita 11y ago
> How would bitcoin's power consumption stack up if it were tasked with servicing tens of millions of transactions per second? There is no way to do this calculation. At the moment Bitcoin mining uses, let's say 150MW and can do around 4 transactions per second. If you gave the network a 1000 times more hashing power, you'd be using 150GW, and could handle... around 4 transactions per second.

sanswork 11y ago

The federal reserve has no printing presses. VISA can process 10,000x as many transactions per second as Bitcoin and banks do a lot more than transferring funds.