3 ms·
What's misleading about this is that the electricity is not consumed per transaction. The amount of electricity miners buy is proportional only to the block rew
by modeless 6y ago
What's misleading about this is that the electricity is not consumed per transaction. The amount of electricity miners buy is proportional only to the block reward, which is fixed, plus transaction fees, which are small, times the price. The block reward is large now but halves every 4 years and eventually rounds down to zero, so the electricity consumption of bitcoin will eventually fall with certainty.
Also, that guy is not Satoshi. Satoshi is almost certainly dead, and was probably Hal Finney.
- arcticbull 6y agoyour first paragraph is a round about restatement of the fact that it consumes exactly as much electricity and produces exactly as much waste as I said it did. Once block reward gets to zero, unless people pay the $80 in power it costs to operate the network as a transaction fee it’ll be vulnerable to a 51% attack, so poof. Rip. Ok I provided a detailed article explaining why Paul Le Roux is probably Satoshi and you responded with nothing.
- modeless 6y ago> unless people pay the $80 in power it costs to operate the network as a transaction fee it’ll be vulnerable to a 51% attack Your $80 is based on the current block reward which was set totally arbitrarily and is not in any way an estimate of the actual amount necessary to prevent 51% attacks in the future after the block reward disappears.
- arcticbull 6y agoRight but after the block reward goes away lol, you’re going to have to pony up or 51%, and until the block reward goes down in 1500 days it’s 100% fair to say what I did about what a transaction costs.