4 ms·

There have been previous threads on HN with some back-of-the-envelope comparisons of Bitcoin's energy consumption vs the global banking systems, e.g. https://ne

by m-i-l 8y ago

There have been previous threads on HN with some back-of-the-envelope comparisons of Bitcoin's energy consumption vs the global banking systems, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18325430 . If these rough calculations are correct, the global banking system uses ~100TWh/year (including datacentres, branches, heating in offices etc.) while Bitcoin is around one-third of that at ~30TWh/year for a negligible percentage of the total number of transactions, and a single Visa transaction (again factoring in datacentres etc.) is 41Wh per transaction whereas a single Bitcoin trasaction is around 20,000 more at ~826kWh. That was also 5 months ago, so the situation is likely to have got worse for Bitcoin, given the traditional banking system is incentivised to reduce energy consumption whereas Bitcoin is explicitly designed to increase energy consumption over time.

Nursie 8y ago
Bitcoin also provides very, very few of the features of the global banking system, which does a lot more than run transactions!
keymone 8y ago
do these calculations take into account energy equivalent of running all the armies in the world, funding their wars and conflicts? because entire banking system exists on a premise that there is an army behind every fiat currency, so it's not really honest to exclude that from communication. bitcoin security on the other hand is backed purely by energy spent by miners.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  The idea that bitcoin will magically make armies obsolete is one of the most laughably silly ideas I’ve seen in a long time, and that’s quite the bar to clear. Hint: wars predate fiat currency. You’d still need army without fiat.
  - keymone 8y ago
    why obsolete? i never said that. bitcoin will just decouple money security from state security. which is why when you compare energy consumption, you need to include at least some chunk of resources dedicated to army, defence, etc.
    - jcranmer 8y ago
      You said "do these calculations take into account energy equivalent of running all the armies in the world, funding their wars and conflicts?" That's not "at least some chunk", that's the entire cost that you're trying to wedge in there.
      - keymone 8y ago
        ok, feel free to only include partial cost. how does that change my point?
        village-idiot 8y ago
        The premise of “no fiat, less war” is just asserted without any proof, and is actually quite ahistorical.
        keymone 8y ago
        i never said nor implied "no fiat, less war".
        village-idiot 8y ago
        Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.
        8y ago
saalweachter 8y ago
Do the numbers in that article, uhhh, add up? The article estimates the total number of ATMs at 3 million, with an average daily power consumption of 5Wh, for a total yearly power consumption of 13Twh. Except if I punch [3 million * 5Wh * 365.25 to terawatt-hours] into the Google, I get 0.0055TWh. If I assume the author meant to type 5kWh as the average daily power consumption, you get 5.5TWh, which is closer, but still not the stated quantity. [EDIT: OK, so I if I punch [3 million * 500W * 365.25 days to terawatt-hours] into the Google I get the 13TWh the author estimated for ATM consumption. So the author is actually assuming that the average ATM is consuming 500W?] Likewise the numbers for how much electricity bank branches consume doesn't seem to add up (it seems like the author assumes branches consume an average of 10kW, not 10kWh/day?), and I can't replicate any of the numbers given for bank server energy consumption (just multiplying the numbers given in the article together in different ways). Can someone else get the numbers in the original article [https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumption-fallacy-8cf194987a50 https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consu...] to add up?

by m-i-l 8y ago

Nursie 8y ago

Bitcoin also provides very, very few of the features of the global banking system, which does a lot more than run transactions!

keymone 8y ago

do these calculations take into account energy equivalent of running all the armies in the world, funding their wars and conflicts? because entire banking system exists on a premise that there is an army behind every fiat currency, so it's not really honest to exclude that from communication. bitcoin security on the other hand is backed purely by energy spent by miners.

village-idiot 8y ago
The idea that bitcoin will magically make armies obsolete is one of the most laughably silly ideas I’ve seen in a long time, and that’s quite the bar to clear. Hint: wars predate fiat currency. You’d still need army without fiat.
- keymone 8y ago
  why obsolete? i never said that. bitcoin will just decouple money security from state security. which is why when you compare energy consumption, you need to include at least some chunk of resources dedicated to army, defence, etc.
  - jcranmer 8y ago
    You said "do these calculations take into account energy equivalent of running all the armies in the world, funding their wars and conflicts?" That's not "at least some chunk", that's the entire cost that you're trying to wedge in there.
    - keymone 8y ago
      ok, feel free to only include partial cost. how does that change my point?
      - village-idiot 8y ago
        The premise of “no fiat, less war” is just asserted without any proof, and is actually quite ahistorical.
        keymone 8y ago
        i never said nor implied "no fiat, less war".
        village-idiot 8y ago
        Now you’re just dodging the question. Prove your assertion that a country on bitcoin would need a smaller army. I’ll wait. Edit: saying that the economy would be deflationary and thus couldn’t afford a large army would be a hilarious way to go.
        8y ago

saalweachter 8y ago

Do the numbers in that article, uhhh, add up? The article estimates the total number of ATMs at 3 million, with an average daily power consumption of 5Wh, for a total yearly power consumption of 13Twh. Except if I punch [3 million * 5Wh * 365.25 to terawatt-hours] into the Google, I get 0.0055TWh. If I assume the author meant to type 5kWh as the average daily power consumption, you get 5.5TWh, which is closer, but still not the stated quantity. [EDIT: OK, so I if I punch [3 million * 500W * 365.25 days to terawatt-hours] into the Google I get the 13TWh the author estimated for ATM consumption. So the author is actually assuming that the average ATM is consuming 500W?] Likewise the numbers for how much electricity bank branches consume doesn't seem to add up (it seems like the author assumes branches consume an average of 10kW, not 10kWh/day?), and I can't replicate any of the numbers given for bank server energy consumption (just multiplying the numbers given in the article together in different ways). Can someone else get the numbers in the original article [https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consumption-fallacy-8cf194987a50 https://hackernoon.com/the-bitcoin-vs-visa-electricity-consu...] to add up?