|
It’s only 1812kWh per transaction according to this: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ Currency of the future!
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:It’s only 1812kWh per transaction according to this: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ Buddy of mine yesterday was like "well, people on the left are always saying Bitcoin's got some energy concerns, but what they don't realize is it's pushing us TOWARDS renewable energy"
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:34
|
|
|
Jose Valasquez posted:It’s only 1812kWh per transaction according to this: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ In fairness, that (horrifying) per-transaction figure is the result of a division problem: the entire bitcoin network is wasting however many MWh every day, regardless of how many transactions it actually processes. A person sitting down and doing a transaction doesn't directly cause a miner to spool up and burn through another 1800 KWh -- that miner was already on and doing its busywork at full power anyway. Of course, using cryptocurrency does contribute to further popularizing the whole thing, of course, so there's still plenty of indirect blame to assign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2021 14:50
|
|
|
TraderStav posted:Can you cite a source or show the work on this? God I'd love to have this in my back pocket. https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ Single Bitcoin Transaction Footprints 1812.22 kWh My Kia EV gets 3.4 miles per. KWh so that’s 6,162 miles LA to Portland, ME is 3,094 miles according to Google Maps. Q.E.D.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 00:46
|
|
|
VideoGameVet posted:https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/ Thank you, insane.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
Powered Descent posted:In fairness, that (horrifying) per-transaction figure is the result of a division problem: the entire bitcoin network is wasting however many MWh every day, regardless of how many transactions it actually processes. A person sitting down and doing a transaction doesn't directly cause a miner to spool up and burn through another 1800 KWh -- that miner was already on and doing its busywork at full power anyway. That's not much of a defense, because the network is already running at a substantial fraction of its transaction capacity, though. You can't say "well gee the network overhead looks bad on a per-transaction basis but the overhead would stay the same if it processed 10 or 100 or 1000 times as many transactions" because the network is designed such that it can't even handle twice as many transactions let alone 10 or 100 or 1000 times, regardless of overhead. (A scaleable solution to the transaction capacity limits is also coming any day now for the past 7 years, just like an alternative solution to the energy consumption problem.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2021 18:12
|
|
|
the holy poopacy posted:That's not much of a defense, because the network is already running at a substantial fraction of its transaction capacity, though. You can't say "well gee the network overhead looks bad on a per-transaction basis but the overhead would stay the same if it processed 10 or 100 or 1000 times as many transactions" because the network is designed such that it can't even handle twice as many transactions let alone 10 or 100 or 1000 times, regardless of overhead. The BTC energy consumption isn't network traffic. It's the miners verifying transactions by the act of mining which is guessing a NEW set of numbers that generate a series of zero when run thru SHA256. Proof Of Work
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:21 |
|
|
if you’re “into” conceptual art, NFTs are for you
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 18:24
|
|
