5 ms·

Being snarky is fun, but in this case misleading. Transactions don’t consume this electricity, competing for the next block does.

arcticbull 6y ago
The 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 ago
  The quantity of transactions here is irrelevant, so is the power cost per transaction.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    lol, ok, then the power cost per block of 3 transactions. Multiply by 3.
    - DJBunnies 6y ago
      You multiply by zero as the transactions do not contribute to energy usage.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        haha, 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 ago
        I 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.
        DJBunnies 6y ago
        > Which is a reward for processing transactions. No, it is a reward for finding the next block. Miners can optionally choose to include transactions if they wish.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        A block of... 0 or more what now? Which wouldn’t need to exist if the ledger was immutable? Ergo... I mean you seem pretty intelligent so I’m gonna assume you get my point. 0 or more transactions form a block, which is mined to facilitate mutations. Mutations in the form of transactions. Nothing more. The block reward is compensation for providing the service of processing blocks of 0 or more transactions. A mining scheme that consistently has 0 transactions achieved nothing. End of story. If you disagree explain to me what else mining achieves.

arcticbull 6y ago

The 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 ago
The quantity of transactions here is irrelevant, so is the power cost per transaction.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  lol, ok, then the power cost per block of 3 transactions. Multiply by 3.
  - DJBunnies 6y ago
    You multiply by zero as the transactions do not contribute to energy usage.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      haha, 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 ago
        I 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.
        DJBunnies 6y ago
        > Which is a reward for processing transactions. No, it is a reward for finding the next block. Miners can optionally choose to include transactions if they wish.
        arcticbull 6y ago
        A block of... 0 or more what now? Which wouldn’t need to exist if the ledger was immutable? Ergo... I mean you seem pretty intelligent so I’m gonna assume you get my point. 0 or more transactions form a block, which is mined to facilitate mutations. Mutations in the form of transactions. Nothing more. The block reward is compensation for providing the service of processing blocks of 0 or more transactions. A mining scheme that consistently has 0 transactions achieved nothing. End of story. If you disagree explain to me what else mining achieves.