There's quite a few problems with this article. First if you are going to say something is correlated it'd be nice to provide an R^2 or something to quantify t

There's quite a few problems with this article. First if you are going to say something is correlated it'd be nice to provide an R^2 or something to quantify the correlation. Then given that price of bitcoin and cost of electricity goes back much further than what is listed. Has the correlation been consistent? (given the fact that bitcoin has been growing exponentially I would be surprised) Second if you are trying to predict what will happen to the price & hashrate at the next halving it might help to look to previous examples. This has happened twice to bitcoin alone and many more times on various different coins. This will also affect other SHA256 PoW coins such as bitcoin cash, which is ~9000 blocks ahead. Interestingly it's halving will happen ~9 weeks earlier, not much lead time, but it should give an indication of what will happen to BTC. Lastly: > To compute cost of creating one Bitcoin, I established a correlation between the number of TH/day and kWh/day as value conv in TH/kWh. To compute the value use: 606024TH_sconv*energy_cost/1600 Huh? Where does the 1600 value come from? There are currently 1800 new bitcoins minted every day, is that what it is supposed to be? If that's the case that is the cost to get one of the newly minted bitcoins. Furthermore it's an extremely common misconception that if you spend X electricity you produce Y bitcoins. Saying that there is a specific electricity cost for creating a bitcoin could easily reinforce this idea. It looks like the author understands how it actually works, but the wording used seems like it could easily reinforce that misconception.