5 ms·

Bitcoin would be an utter failure if it sacrificed security in order to gain speed and efficiency. And make sure to compare how much energy (including the enti

by krupan 6y ago

Bitcoin would be an utter failure if it sacrificed security in order to gain speed and efficiency. And make sure to compare how much energy (including the entire military, police forces, FBI, etc.) is used to secure US dollars.

arcticbull 6y ago
> And make sure to compare how much energy (including the entire military, police forces, FBI, etc.) is used to secure US dollars. Those aren't to secure the US dollar, those are to secure the US. Switching to Bitcoin would not change the expenditure in those areas one iota. Not. One. Iota. If anything the US dollar is freeloading on the expenditure there. However, setting that aside, it's pretty trivial to disprove your argument. If you linearly scaled the energy usage of Bitcoin to the number of transactions per second currently handled by just Visa alone, Bitcoin would require more energy than the entire world generates a few times over, and generate more e-waste than the entire world generates today. 7 transactions per second is enough for a decently flea market or a Costco, not a global economy. > Bitcoin would be an utter failure if it sacrificed security in order to gain speed and efficiency. Which is why it shouldn't exist. We can do better. We are doing better already.
qwytw 6y ago
There were 285,418 bitcoin transactions* in the last 24 hours, bitcoin energy consumption is estimated to be around 76.87 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.210603 twh per day. So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying... *according to https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying... From the same site, mean transaction value is 2.67 BTC ($86,672 USD), so about .1% transaction fee. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-percent https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-perce... computes it at closer to 1%. My guess for the difference is comparing total volume vs. approximate real value transfer (subtracting the change going back to the same address). Comparable to the cost of the card networks but an order of magnitude more expensive than ACH transfers and maybe double the cost of wire transfers. EDIT: I'm assuming that the profit margin is scarce on average so most miner fees go directly to hardware+electricity. Given the volatile price in USD I don't know a better assumption to make.
  - qwytw 6y ago
    Yeah your point about it being a fairly low % of average transaction value is valid, the % is highly dependant on the current market price of bitcoin, though. The $73 is not strictly related to the transfers fees but rather to how much it costs to mine a single bitcoin. If the total numbers of transactions were to decrease by 99% the energy cost per transaction would be $7300 but that wouldn't mean that transfers fees would increase that much or at all (if I understand how btc transfers work correctly it should decrease since there would be less people bidding) as long mining bitcoin remains profitable. If currently 900 coins are generated per day, the cost to generate 1 bitcoin (234003kWh at $0.1 per kWh and using the yearly energy consumption value) is $23,400 in addition to that miners also received 150 coins from transaction fees in the last 24 hours. So if 150 dropped to ~0 the number of miners should only decrease by 14% to maintain the same profit margins.
- GoblinSlayer 6y ago
  Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Yeah, no, it simply does not. Citation needed.
    - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
      It's also on the original claimant to prove that mining runs on CO2 energy.
      - qwytw 6y ago
        What proportion of bitcoin mining is done in places which have either built new renewable power plants specifically for mining bitcoin or already have a surplus of energy and have no options to sell it to anyone else? The only example I know is Iceland, but according to https://cbeci.org/mining_map https://cbeci.org/mining_map it's not even in the top 10. Over 85% of all bitcoins are mined in these countries: - 65% is mined in China with 721.2 g/kWh - 7.2% in US: 417.305 g/kWh - 6.9% in Russia: 517 g/kWh - 6.17% in Kazakhstan (couldn't fine specific figure but around 80% produced power comes from Coal plants so gCO2/kWh must be very high) The only country in the list which close to 0g/kWh is Norway at 0.48%.
        GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        China has history of building hydroelectric power plants with excess power and you need only a few instances of surplus energy as they can be bought at a discount, which makes mining more profitable. Fossil fuel can't provide surplus energy in principle and can't be attractive for mining.
  - qwytw 6y ago
    Unless it's in a grid in which a 100% of all energy is renewable that's not that relevant because lowering total energy consumption would it make possible to decrease production in fossil fuel power plants.

by krupan 6y ago

arcticbull 6y ago

> And make sure to compare how much energy (including the entire military, police forces, FBI, etc.) is used to secure US dollars. Those aren't to secure the US dollar, those are to secure the US. Switching to Bitcoin would not change the expenditure in those areas one iota. Not. One. Iota. If anything the US dollar is freeloading on the expenditure there. However, setting that aside, it's pretty trivial to disprove your argument. If you linearly scaled the energy usage of Bitcoin to the number of transactions per second currently handled by just Visa alone, Bitcoin would require more energy than the entire world generates a few times over, and generate more e-waste than the entire world generates today. 7 transactions per second is enough for a decently flea market or a Costco, not a global economy. > Bitcoin would be an utter failure if it sacrificed security in order to gain speed and efficiency. Which is why it shouldn't exist. We can do better. We are doing better already.

qwytw 6y ago

There were 285,418 bitcoin transactions* in the last 24 hours, bitcoin energy consumption is estimated to be around 76.87 terawatt hours per year, which is 0.210603 twh per day. So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying... *according to https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/ https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/

benlivengood 6y ago
> So 0.210603 / 285,418 = 0.000000737874765 which is 737.874765 kWh per transaction. Assuming a price of $0.10 and an average 475g CO2 emitted per kWh, the real cost of a single transaction is $73 and 350kg of CO2. But I suppose that's a price worth paying... From the same site, mean transaction value is 2.67 BTC ($86,672 USD), so about .1% transaction fee. https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-percent https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction-perce... computes it at closer to 1%. My guess for the difference is comparing total volume vs. approximate real value transfer (subtracting the change going back to the same address). Comparable to the cost of the card networks but an order of magnitude more expensive than ACH transfers and maybe double the cost of wire transfers. EDIT: I'm assuming that the profit margin is scarce on average so most miner fees go directly to hardware+electricity. Given the volatile price in USD I don't know a better assumption to make.
- qwytw 6y ago
  Yeah your point about it being a fairly low % of average transaction value is valid, the % is highly dependant on the current market price of bitcoin, though. The $73 is not strictly related to the transfers fees but rather to how much it costs to mine a single bitcoin. If the total numbers of transactions were to decrease by 99% the energy cost per transaction would be $7300 but that wouldn't mean that transfers fees would increase that much or at all (if I understand how btc transfers work correctly it should decrease since there would be less people bidding) as long mining bitcoin remains profitable. If currently 900 coins are generated per day, the cost to generate 1 bitcoin (234003kWh at $0.1 per kWh and using the yearly energy consumption value) is $23,400 in addition to that miners also received 150 coins from transaction fees in the last 24 hours. So if 150 dropped to ~0 the number of miners should only decrease by 14% to maintain the same profit margins.
GoblinSlayer 6y ago
Bitcoin mining uses hydroelectricity, that doesn't emit CO2.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  Yeah, no, it simply does not. Citation needed.
  - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
    It's also on the original claimant to prove that mining runs on CO2 energy.
    - qwytw 6y ago
      What proportion of bitcoin mining is done in places which have either built new renewable power plants specifically for mining bitcoin or already have a surplus of energy and have no options to sell it to anyone else? The only example I know is Iceland, but according to https://cbeci.org/mining_map https://cbeci.org/mining_map it's not even in the top 10. Over 85% of all bitcoins are mined in these countries: - 65% is mined in China with 721.2 g/kWh - 7.2% in US: 417.305 g/kWh - 6.9% in Russia: 517 g/kWh - 6.17% in Kazakhstan (couldn't fine specific figure but around 80% produced power comes from Coal plants so gCO2/kWh must be very high) The only country in the list which close to 0g/kWh is Norway at 0.48%.
      - GoblinSlayer 6y ago
        China has history of building hydroelectric power plants with excess power and you need only a few instances of surplus energy as they can be bought at a discount, which makes mining more profitable. Fossil fuel can't provide surplus energy in principle and can't be attractive for mining.
- qwytw 6y ago
  Unless it's in a grid in which a 100% of all energy is renewable that's not that relevant because lowering total energy consumption would it make possible to decrease production in fossil fuel power plants.