4 ms·

That's not how logic works. That would be like saying "you need light to your math homework so we will measure how many math problems you can do per lumen of l

That's not how logic works. That would be like saying "you need light to your math homework so we will measure how many math problems you can do per lumen of light". The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way.

arcticbull 5y ago
A better analogy would be trying to use a 7-seater dump truck as a school bus, then complaining when the 'haters' analysis is based on "gallons of gasoline per available seat-day." As if the fact the gallons of gasoline per seat-day changes based on external factors (i.e. with the weather or traffic) makes any difference? It legitimately does not matter that (i) not all 7 seats may be populated each day or that (ii) the gas required varies day to day based on externalities. That's why we invented averages and spot measurements. So fine, "kWh per available transaction-second" may be a more apt moniker however that's strictly what I've been talking about. Since 100% of electricity usage is attributable to mutations, this is a completely fair quantization. As blocks have been overwhelmingly full for years, the point on discrepancy is pretty much moot. And further, the point is a dump truck is totally unsuitable for use as a school bus. You are more than welcome to measure Wh of electricity used per math question in regards to the lighting setup. You'll find that number small and irrelevant, however. On the other hand if it requires a few thousand kWh worth of light to do a math question, you're well within your rights to ask (a) why you're doing math questions in what must be a stadium setting and (b) whether there's a more efficient lighting solution. Which are exactly the questions we're asking here. So, respectfully, that's exactly how logic works.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I'm not defending bitcoin, I'm just pointing out that you have huge misunderstanding about how it and cryptocurrency works in general even though these things have been explained to you over and over. Bitcoin's electricity use it because of its sustained price. If the miners could not consistently sell for high prices the overall electricity use would go down. Price/electricity usage going up or down does not affect throughput over the long term. Bitcoin's throughput is from being artificially crippled to sell a second layer. If the maximum block size was raised, it would have more throughput. The max block size does not change the amount of electricity used from the block reward. The same way that you would not measure your internet connection on mb per kw/hr since the energy used by 10mbs service is going to be the same as 1000gbs service. The two things are barely correlated. Energy per transaction is barely correlated. I know it is simple and easy to look at two numbers and pretend they depend on each other, but that isn't the dynamic here, which is why everything you are saying is nonsense.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. > ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense. You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.
    - CyberDildonics 5y ago
      No one is being rude to you. If you don't want someone to mention that you made up something they didn't say, then don't do that. If you say the same things over and over that have been explained to you to be false, don't be surprised if that gets brought up. If you can confront what I'm saying with something true, feel free.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        > No one is being rude to you. You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;) > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works" is certainly a valid thing to call out as whining or complaining because again it's not particularly civil. Off the basis of your misinterpretation you once again accuse your counter-party of 'hallucinating.' As I said this thread is over and should in the future you decide to have a civil conversation I'll happily engage.
        CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You said it makes sense to put something in terms of a ratio even though they are uncorrelated except for a binary neccesity. That's like saying movies need sound and movies make money so let's measure movies by volume to dollars. It is literally broken logic. You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.
lottin 5y ago
> The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way. We know that. This is not an argument against cost per transaction being an adequate measure of efficiency for a transaction processing system.
- CyberDildonics 5y ago
  Cost per transaction to the users is important, but it is mostly separate from the cost of mining. The cost of mining is dictated by the price. Conflating the two doesn't make sense, because they aren't correlated and the costs are taken on by different groups of people. Not only that, but not all cryptocurrencies are even trying to optimize for this. I would say that bitcoin is actually in the opposite direction and trying to be as expensive per transaction for both the miners and users as possible.

arcticbull 5y ago

A better analogy would be trying to use a 7-seater dump truck as a school bus, then complaining when the 'haters' analysis is based on "gallons of gasoline per available seat-day." As if the fact the gallons of gasoline per seat-day changes based on external factors (i.e. with the weather or traffic) makes any difference? It legitimately does not matter that (i) not all 7 seats may be populated each day or that (ii) the gas required varies day to day based on externalities. That's why we invented averages and spot measurements. So fine, "kWh per available transaction-second" may be a more apt moniker however that's strictly what I've been talking about. Since 100% of electricity usage is attributable to mutations, this is a completely fair quantization. As blocks have been overwhelmingly full for years, the point on discrepancy is pretty much moot. And further, the point is a dump truck is totally unsuitable for use as a school bus. You are more than welcome to measure Wh of electricity used per math question in regards to the lighting setup. You'll find that number small and irrelevant, however. On the other hand if it requires a few thousand kWh worth of light to do a math question, you're well within your rights to ask (a) why you're doing math questions in what must be a stadium setting and (b) whether there's a more efficient lighting solution. Which are exactly the questions we're asking here. So, respectfully, that's exactly how logic works.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I'm not defending bitcoin, I'm just pointing out that you have huge misunderstanding about how it and cryptocurrency works in general even though these things have been explained to you over and over. Bitcoin's electricity use it because of its sustained price. If the miners could not consistently sell for high prices the overall electricity use would go down. Price/electricity usage going up or down does not affect throughput over the long term. Bitcoin's throughput is from being artificially crippled to sell a second layer. If the maximum block size was raised, it would have more throughput. The max block size does not change the amount of electricity used from the block reward. The same way that you would not measure your internet connection on mb per kw/hr since the energy used by 10mbs service is going to be the same as 1000gbs service. The two things are barely correlated. Energy per transaction is barely correlated. I know it is simple and easy to look at two numbers and pretend they depend on each other, but that isn't the dynamic here, which is why everything you are saying is nonsense.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. > ... which is why everything you are saying is nonsense. You're being rude again. Once again this is against the site terms. I'm happy to engage in any civil conversation with you that doesn't involve name-calling, as I'm sure you've seen a number of times. This thread, however is closed.
  - CyberDildonics 5y ago
    No one is being rude to you. If you don't want someone to mention that you made up something they didn't say, then don't do that. If you say the same things over and over that have been explained to you to be false, don't be surprised if that gets brought up. If you can confront what I'm saying with something true, feel free.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      > No one is being rude to you. You may wanna chat with your mother for a second opinion ;) > No one is complaining and no one said "haters", these are things you hallucinated. I didn't say you said 'haters' that's a stylized/flourished way of saying an opposing viewpoint. That's why it's in quotes. If anything it was self-deprecating/deferential with respect to my biases. Jumping in with "that's not how logic works" is certainly a valid thing to call out as whining or complaining because again it's not particularly civil. Off the basis of your misinterpretation you once again accuse your counter-party of 'hallucinating.' As I said this thread is over and should in the future you decide to have a civil conversation I'll happily engage.
      - CyberDildonics 5y ago
        You said it makes sense to put something in terms of a ratio even though they are uncorrelated except for a binary neccesity. That's like saying movies need sound and movies make money so let's measure movies by volume to dollars. It is literally broken logic. You seem happy to engage on how something is being said, but not so much on what is being said.

lottin 5y ago

> The throughput of transactions is not coupled to the amount of electricity used to mine. They are two elements in the system, that doesn't mean they move proportionally in any way. We know that. This is not an argument against cost per transaction being an adequate measure of efficiency for a transaction processing system.

CyberDildonics 5y ago
Cost per transaction to the users is important, but it is mostly separate from the cost of mining. The cost of mining is dictated by the price. Conflating the two doesn't make sense, because they aren't correlated and the costs are taken on by different groups of people. Not only that, but not all cryptocurrencies are even trying to optimize for this. I would say that bitcoin is actually in the opposite direction and trying to be as expensive per transaction for both the miners and users as possible.