4 ms·
Did you read that article you posted? Those stats assumed CPU/GPU and FPGA, not ASIC, miners. For instance, the 5-to-500-gigahash-per-second rigs would have t
by mr_luc 12y ago
Did you read that article you posted?
Those stats assumed CPU/GPU and FPGA, not ASIC, miners.
For instance, the 5-to-500-gigahash-per-second rigs would have to be running at over 300k watts of electricity using those statistics. :)
So in reality, the network is much more efficient -- the high-end miners are using more than 100x less electricity (which would still be 3000 watts for high-end rigs per those numbers), and probably closer to 1000x less, than those estimates.
- throwawayaway 12y agocurrent hash rate GH/s: 300,000,000 //https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate GH/s/w: 4.6 // http://www.coindesk.com/a-look-inside-kncminer/ http://www.coindesk.com/a-look-inside-kncminer/ watts to provite current hash rate: 300,000,000/4.6 = 65,217,391.30 w kw to provide 1s: 65,217.39 an hour of that: 65,217.39*3600 234,782,604 kwh 10c per kwh => $23,478,260.4 per hour 24 hours => $563,478,249.60 my own figures are even more wacky so I would welcome some better statistics.
- brazzy 12y agoYour calculation is WAY off, which the bizarrely high end result should have made obvious. Multiplying by 3600 is where you go wrong. 65,217kW is the energy usage. Providing that for an hour takes 65,217kWh - not multiplied by anything. So that's $6,521 per hour, $156,521 per day.
- throwawayaway 12y agogreat thanks, 100 times cheaper than the forbes article. ps it wasn't obvious at all, that's why i wrote "even more wacky" as mark of how solid i thought the figures were. 3600*7 = 25200 transactions for $6521. they'd really want to see about increasing the block size.
- brazzy 12y agoThe block size is not the limit here; the protocol aims for one block every 10 minutes so that users don't have to wait too long to get a transaction confirmed. Cost per transaction would go down drastically with increased usage.