3 ms·
Citing Digiconomist numbers is really undermining the credibility of this article. de Vries’s work has been debunked and shown to be garbage literally every tim
by jonathan-adly 4y ago
Citing Digiconomist numbers is really undermining the credibility of this article. de Vries’s work has been debunked and shown to be garbage literally every time he publishes something (he is a low-level EU central banker, so not really a great authority).
If you want to use something, this is much more credible from Cambridge University (showing radically different numbers): https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index https://ccaf.io/cbeci/index
For an example on what digiconmist gets wrong (there are many!): https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/not-science-digiconomist-bitcoin https://bitcoinmagazine.com/business/not-science-digiconomis...
- PragmaticPulp 4y agoAs I write this comment, the Digiconomist estimates for the Bitcoin network is 129.74 TWh The Cambridge University estimate for the Bitcoin network is 92.93 TWh with a lower bound of 51.01 TWh and an upper bound of 153.61 TWh. (I don't see an Ethereum comparison on the Cambridge site, so I can't check those numbers) Given that the Digiconomist estimate is within the bounds of the Cambridge estimate, I don't see how this is really a debunking. I'm not really inclined to put too much faith into an article from "Bitcoin Magazine" on the topic when a quick look at the numbers shows that the two primary sources don't really disagree and have similar estimates.
- JohnJamesRambo 4y agoGive them their semantic difference, it’s all Bitcoin maxis have had to fight the absurd numbers for a while.
- jonathan-adly 4y agoCNBC is better? https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/no-bitcoin-is-likely-not-going-to-consume-all-the-worlds-energy-in-2020.html https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/21/no-bitcoin-is-likely-not-goi...
- lottin 4y agoI was expecting something a little more academic.