4 ms·
> If energy consumption per-transaction is more your speed, that’s ~35Wh/tx The improved energy consumption is still a lot. For reference, a 2019 16" MacBook P
by kevindong 5y ago
> If energy consumption per-transaction is more your speed, that’s ~35Wh/tx
The improved energy consumption is still a lot. For reference, a 2019 16" MacBook Pro has a 100 Wh battery. In other words, 3ish transactions would fully drain such a laptop's battery.
- DennisP 5y agoIt's an average for the network, not an actual expense you pay to run a transaction. Stakers are the ones mainly using that energy. If you're just a regular user and send a transaction, you just spend the tiny bit of energy needed to make a cryptographic signature and transmit it.
- johndough 5y agoI think the issue here is that 35Wh per transaction is still a million times less efficient than traditional databases. The MacBook example is just meant to give a frame of reference for how much 35Wh is.
- DennisP 5y agoSure, no argument there. I'm really glad proof-of-stake is close. It's just that GP made it sound like issuing three transactions would actually drain your battery, so I wanted to clarify that.