5 ms·

Does Taproot do anything to reduce the absurd power consumption? If not then it just feels as useful as rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic to me.

loceng 5y ago
Shhh.. Just keep looking at only the positives and the future, no time for criticism and addressing the known pitfalls!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
drak0n1c 5y ago
Yes it does, the byte size of transaction processing is smaller, and additionally many more transactions can be batched together when processing happens due to the more efficient algorithm.
Tepix 5y ago
Bitcoins biggest innovation is moving transactions off of bitcoin. That tells you all about it's capabilities really. Why bother with this outdated tech when there are vastly more capable coins out there?
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  Because there are still more people to dupe into buying ASIC miners, as well as many more who haven't broken even yet. Can't you see what's at stake?!
  - Tepix 5y ago
    Oh i thought the main motivation was to get more people to buy the coin to raise its price.
    - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
      Oh it is, but Bitcoin could be as nimble as its competition if it didn't have the sha256-must-stay-relevant-or-miners-will-riot constraint.
aron_misj 5y ago
> absurd power consumption lol.
wcoenen 5y ago
No. How the space on the block chain is used doesn't really factor into that. The ceiling for the power usage of bitcoin can be estimated by taking the value of the bitcoin that is mined in total each hour (say 6 blocks/hour * 6.25 BTC * 60K $/BTC = 2.25M dollars/hour) and dividing it by the cost of electricity (e.g. (2.25M $/hour) / 0.05 $/kWh = 45 gigawatt). As long as miners are using less electricity than that, they can make more profit by expanding their operations. (It's a bit more complicated because of capital costs and operational costs other than electricity etc. but I think it's a good rough estimate to start with.)
skybrian 5y ago
The prize money flowing to miners doesn’t change so energy usage won’t change. (You can think of this as fixed overhead that’s proportional to Bitcoin’s price, regardless of what transactions do.) However, the transactions do more so arguably the cost/benefit ratio improves a bit. Measuring this might be hard without a clear definition of what the benefit of a transaction is.
rabite 5y ago
Bitcoin's power consumption is not absurd -- proof of work is a method of converting power to security. It uses far less energy than the legacy banking system, which is enforced by trillions of dollars of military expenditures and banking employees burning fossil fuels instead of a comparatively tiny amount of electricity. When we finally phase out the legacy banking system completely for cryptocurrency, it will represent a drastic reduction in finance-related energy consumption worldwide.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  > It uses far less energy than the legacy banking system False equivalence. It supports several orders of magnitude fewer transactions and throughput. >When we finally phase out the legacy banking system completely for cryptocurrency This will never happen. >it will represent a drastic reduction in finance-related energy consumption worldwide Assuming this hypothetical, prove it. Explain mathematically how proof of work supporting global finance levels of transactions would result in a net reduction in energy consumption.
- echelon 5y ago
  > converting power to security What the hell does this even mean? Quantum computers will eventually rip this stuff apart. And the reason folks won't be able to do the same to US banks and institutions using QC? The military and NSA will hunt you down.

loceng 5y ago

Shhh.. Just keep looking at only the positives and the future, no time for criticism and addressing the known pitfalls!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

drak0n1c 5y ago

Yes it does, the byte size of transaction processing is smaller, and additionally many more transactions can be batched together when processing happens due to the more efficient algorithm.

Tepix 5y ago

Bitcoins biggest innovation is moving transactions off of bitcoin. That tells you all about it's capabilities really. Why bother with this outdated tech when there are vastly more capable coins out there?

__MatrixMan__ 5y ago
Because there are still more people to dupe into buying ASIC miners, as well as many more who haven't broken even yet. Can't you see what's at stake?!
- Tepix 5y ago
  Oh i thought the main motivation was to get more people to buy the coin to raise its price.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    Oh it is, but Bitcoin could be as nimble as its competition if it didn't have the sha256-must-stay-relevant-or-miners-will-riot constraint.

aron_misj 5y ago

> absurd power consumption lol.

wcoenen 5y ago

No. How the space on the block chain is used doesn't really factor into that. The ceiling for the power usage of bitcoin can be estimated by taking the value of the bitcoin that is mined in total each hour (say 6 blocks/hour * 6.25 BTC * 60K $/BTC = 2.25M dollars/hour) and dividing it by the cost of electricity (e.g. (2.25M $/hour) / 0.05 $/kWh = 45 gigawatt). As long as miners are using less electricity than that, they can make more profit by expanding their operations. (It's a bit more complicated because of capital costs and operational costs other than electricity etc. but I think it's a good rough estimate to start with.)

skybrian 5y ago

The prize money flowing to miners doesn’t change so energy usage won’t change. (You can think of this as fixed overhead that’s proportional to Bitcoin’s price, regardless of what transactions do.) However, the transactions do more so arguably the cost/benefit ratio improves a bit. Measuring this might be hard without a clear definition of what the benefit of a transaction is.

rabite 5y ago

Bitcoin's power consumption is not absurd -- proof of work is a method of converting power to security. It uses far less energy than the legacy banking system, which is enforced by trillions of dollars of military expenditures and banking employees burning fossil fuels instead of a comparatively tiny amount of electricity. When we finally phase out the legacy banking system completely for cryptocurrency, it will represent a drastic reduction in finance-related energy consumption worldwide.

defaultprimate 5y ago
> It uses far less energy than the legacy banking system False equivalence. It supports several orders of magnitude fewer transactions and throughput. >When we finally phase out the legacy banking system completely for cryptocurrency This will never happen. >it will represent a drastic reduction in finance-related energy consumption worldwide Assuming this hypothetical, prove it. Explain mathematically how proof of work supporting global finance levels of transactions would result in a net reduction in energy consumption.
echelon 5y ago
> converting power to security What the hell does this even mean? Quantum computers will eventually rip this stuff apart. And the reason folks won't be able to do the same to US banks and institutions using QC? The military and NSA will hunt you down.