4 ms·

> same amount of energy, regardless if there are 1 or 1000 transactions in the block. Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in

> same amount of energy, regardless if there are 1 or 1000 transactions in the block. Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number). > this metric can go down by actually increasing the number of transactions, ie. continuing to accept Bitcoin as payments. Are you implying that there are too few transactions to fill blocks right now, so Tesla accepting bitcoin will make blocks fuller? You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation. More transactions (with fixed # of tx/10 min) = higher fees = more mining competition = more energy expenditure.

mrb 5y ago
«Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number).» There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 (or off-chain) «You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation» Mining and validation are one and the same. A block simultaneously mines new coin and validates existing transactions.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 Basically nobody uses L2 transactions. The amount of actual money that goes through 2nd layer solutions, is very small compared to on chain transactions.
  - rafaelero 5y ago
    Right now, there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN, which I wouldn't describe as negligible. I guess the main problem here is regulation: if I spent it, would I be taxed? Volatility is a problem but probably not a big one in half of the world the live with unstable money.
    - oska 5y ago
      > there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN According to a fairly reliable source [1] it's actually $320 million (on the network + sidechains). [1] https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1392527616981229570 https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/139252761698122957...
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > 65 mi available in liquidity on LN By 65 million in liquidity, I presume you mean the same ~1000 BTC that has always been on the network, for 2 years now. There has been a slight uptick, in the last 6 months, but the amount of BTC on the network has stayed basically the same. I don't really consider "People put 1k bitcoin on the network, 2 years ago, and then never removed it" to be a good example of usage. What matters is usage. How many people are actually using it in actual transactions. Not some nebulous misdirection to a concept of "liquidity".

mrb 5y ago

«Last I heard, there was a physical limit to the number of transactions in a block (and no intent of increasing that number).» There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 (or off-chain) «You also seem to be fully ignoring that the main energy spend is in the mining, not the validation» Mining and validation are one and the same. A block simultaneously mines new coin and validates existing transactions.

stale2002 5y ago
> There is no limit when transactions happen in L2 Basically nobody uses L2 transactions. The amount of actual money that goes through 2nd layer solutions, is very small compared to on chain transactions.
- rafaelero 5y ago
  Right now, there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN, which I wouldn't describe as negligible. I guess the main problem here is regulation: if I spent it, would I be taxed? Volatility is a problem but probably not a big one in half of the world the live with unstable money.
  - oska 5y ago
    > there are $65 mi available in liquidity on LN According to a fairly reliable source [1] it's actually $320 million (on the network + sidechains). [1] https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/1392527616981229570 https://twitter.com/DocumentingBTC/status/139252761698122957...
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > 65 mi available in liquidity on LN By 65 million in liquidity, I presume you mean the same ~1000 BTC that has always been on the network, for 2 years now. There has been a slight uptick, in the last 6 months, but the amount of BTC on the network has stayed basically the same. I don't really consider "People put 1k bitcoin on the network, 2 years ago, and then never removed it" to be a good example of usage. What matters is usage. How many people are actually using it in actual transactions. Not some nebulous misdirection to a concept of "liquidity".