9 ms·
> The biggest caveat in re-using old compute hardware IMO is power consumption, power-efficiency has been one consistent improvement in every new generation of
by walrus01 6y ago
> The biggest caveat in re-using old compute hardware IMO is power consumption, power-efficiency has been one consistent improvement in every new generation of computer chips. So, a new Raspberry Pi is almost always as capable as your old hardware for HTPC but more power efficient.
yes but your typical laptop rarely exceeds 30W, so if your electricity is priced at $0.12 per kWh, and you run that laptop 24x7 for a year:
22.32 kWh per month
same as
$2.67 of electricity
- arcticbull 6y agoOr 3.6% of a Bitcoin transaction per month haha
- DJBunnies 6y agoBeing snarky is fun, but in this case misleading. Transactions don’t consume this electricity, competing for the next block does.
- arcticbull 6y agoThe block of transactions lol literally a problem for division. I could have written “1% of the energy required to process of a block of 3 transactions”
- DJBunnies 6y agoThe quantity of transactions here is irrelevant, so is the power cost per transaction.
- arcticbull 6y agolol, ok, then the power cost per block of 3 transactions. Multiply by 3.
- DJBunnies 6y agoYou multiply by zero as the transactions do not contribute to energy usage.
- arcticbull 6y agohaha, without transactions you wouldn't need to mine anything would you. The network is already secure and the data valid. If there were no transactions the ledger wouldn't need to be appended to, and in that case you could just throw it into read-only storage and call it a day. Transactions are the only thing that contributes to energy usage.
- DJBunnies 6y agoI think you are confused. The only thing that contributes to energy usage is mining blocks, aka the block reward subsidy. Without transactions, it would still happen that way. And does, in the form of empty blocks.
- arcticbull 6y ago> I think you are confused. The only thing that contributes to energy usage is mining blocks, aka the block reward subsidy. Which is a reward for processing transactions. > Without transactions, it would still happen that way. And does, in the form of empty blocks. If we eliminated the ability to transact Bitcoin, the ledger would be closed - finalized. A data blob plus a published SHA. Like any other archive. Mining allows you to amend said ledger, by processing a batch of updates. It is the process by which you amend the ledger, grouped into blocks of 0 or more transactions. Transactibility is what uses 100% of the energy of the bitcoin network and it's fine to quantize that energy usage on a per-block, and per-transaction basis. Mining furnishes transactibility. Transactibility is quantized into blocks, blocks into transactions. I'm sorry, it's clear, transactions and the ability to execute them are what uses 100% of the power of Bitcoin. If not that, then what? Don't just say "mining" - explain what mining provides if not transactibility.