4 ms·

> It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this? Good to know. > It's common k

> It takes months to write, peer-review, and publish research papers So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this? Good to know. > It's common knowledge to anyone in the industry that the Antminer S9 is by far the most popular Bitcoin mining machine. Most popular can mean 30% or even 70% of hash rate. How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim? > As I said elsewhere in this thread, according to https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=801297 CO2 emissions per kWh have already decreased -25% over 11 years. Therefore -80% in 100 years seems easily achievable (the trend only has to continue for 60 years, then there can be 40 years of technological stagnation.) To actually do a comparison, what exactly was the efficiency achieved in last 100 years? Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth. > In fact we don't even need any technological breakthrough to achieve -80%. France already emits 90% less CO2 per kWh than the average country, thanks to nuclear power. And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate).

mrb 8y ago
"So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this?" They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :) "How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?" As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point. "Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth" Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation). "And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)." My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%. You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/Randi_TableS1.csv https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.

mrb 8y ago

"So, there are no peer-reviewed, published research on this?" They are coming. At least one counter-study should imminently be published (I am one of the reviewers.) I am sure more are coming. Patience :) "How do we know it is 60-70% as you claim?" As I already said: this has been neatly researched and presented by the team lead by Christian Stoll in https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3335781 Read their Supplementary Data, tab "3.4 IPO filing analysis" This dominance of the S9 is actually a point where all market researchers unanimously agree on. I am surprised you seem to think it's a contentious point. "Because it looks like you are drawing the same line assumption which the paper does regarding transaction fees and power growth" Not the same line. The researchers assumed tx fees represent as of today 100% of mining revenues when it's really 2% and they extrapolate from here (gross overestimation). Whereas I'm assuming the current CO₂/kWh trend slows down (underestimation). "And how much of the hash rate does France generate? Or how much of China's energy in the future is going to come from nuclear power (assuming they remain the country with largest hashrate)." My point was that all we need is for present-day nuclear technology to be adopted by a good proportion of electricity generators over the next 100 years, and this would easily reduce CO2 emissions per kWh by 80%. You ask a lot of "how do we know that", but the same question applies to your position: "How do we know there will be zero CO2/kWh improvements over the next 100 years?" "How do we know the market share of the Antminer S9 is 1/62 = 1.6% (because there are 62 rows in https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/Randi_TableS1.csv https://raw.githubusercontent.com/moracamilo/Bitcoin/master/...)?" Neither you nor these Nature Climate Change researchers provide any justification, whereas I do.