3 ms·
It’s not really directly related. Miners load hash rate to get a better chance at the next block, the transactions just go along for the ride. This would be t
by DJBunnies 6y ago
It’s not really directly related.
Miners load hash rate to get a better chance at the next block, the transactions just go along for the ride.
This would be true regardless of how much hash power is cumulative.
- whoooooo123 6y agoUm... Can you rephrase this such that people like me who aren't Bitcoin aficionados can understand it?
- DJBunnies 6y agoHash power translates to proof of work, which is like a miner buying a lotto ticket to win the next block. The more tickets a miner has, the more likely they are to win the next block. That's what hash power does.
- tracedddd 6y agoThe energy usage of Bitcoin or similar projects like Ethereum are derived from the “mining” aspect which is not connected to transactions or transaction volume. For example, early Bitcoin was generally, for purposes of discussion, about the same transaction throughput as we have today. But there were very few miners, so the energy costs were very low. Was Bitcoin truly many orders of magnitude more efficient back then? No. It’s simply that there are many many more miners competing for rewards, because Bitcoin is valuable. There’s an energy lottery built into the Bitcoin protocol that emits new currency. This lottery is directly related to the security of the network but not the number of transactions or usage. Unfortunately it’s hard to find an exact parallel but something like the military protection of the dollar would be a more valid comparison than Visa’s transaction volume. Consider this: even if the blocks were empty, which means no transactions, the energy usage would be the same.