. - page 4. | Bitcointalksearch.org

halfawake

hero member

Activity: 490

Merit: 500

Quote from: smoothie on July 08, 2014, 02:09:31 AM

The amount of energy used for the Bitcoin Network is tiny compared to the amount of money to print, mint, guard, secure, etc for say fiat currency.

For now, perhaps. But how big would this energy consumption be if the bitcoin network were as big as a traditional major finanical company like, say, Visa? We should strive to do better than fiat is doing, not merely being not as bad as the traditional system.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

The amount of energy used for the Bitcoin Network is tiny compared to the amount of money to print, mint, guard, secure, etc for say fiat currency.

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: DannyElfman on July 06, 2014, 11:17:03 PM

Quote from: ernie- on July 04, 2014, 03:02:03 AM

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

The problem would be worse if the bitcoin price rises, as mega farms could afford more energy to waste.

Other payment methods use electricity as well. It is just that it is not as transparent as to how much electricity visa for example uses to process their payments. Visa must power their office buildings, computers for employees, computers that process transactions, banks that send money to/from visa (their employees, offices, and computers), printers that print customer statements, call centers to resolve disputes.

Don't confuse mining crypto with payment networks, the two are not the same. Fiat doesn't need mining energy.

DannyElfman

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: ernie- on July 04, 2014, 03:02:03 AM

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

The problem would be worse if the bitcoin price rises, as mega farms could afford more energy to waste.

Other payment methods use electricity as well. It is just that it is not as transparent as to how much electricity visa for example uses to process their payments. Visa must power their office buildings, computers for employees, computers that process transactions, banks that send money to/from visa (their employees, offices, and computers), printers that print customer statements, call centers to resolve disputes.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

Quote from: BurtW on July 06, 2014, 10:46:33 AM

Quote from: InwardContour on July 06, 2014, 12:15:29 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yes, and at equilibrium, the energy spent by the network has exactly the value of the minted coins.
Proof of Work = (literally) Proof of Energy Spent
There is no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware.

I would disagree with your statement about there being no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware. I would define efficient miners as machines that use less electricity per GHs then the network does as a whole.

Of course, mining hardware can become more efficient. The point is that does not matter with respect to the total power and/or energy consumption of the Bitcoin network. Look at the math above where I proved this to you.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7687843

Also, if that is too much to read then re-read this until you understand it:

Quote from: ernie- on July 06, 2014, 01:03:41 AM

Your theory doesn't match the facts. People just keep adding more mining hardware until the electricity consumption is as much as they can stand. The diff rises and they get less BTC than they were getting with the lower efficiency setup.

See yet?

In theory, you could add a little bit of additional mining capacity (that is very efficient in terms of electric usage) to the network that would increase the difficulty a small amount, but that small amount would make it so a lot of less efficient miners no longer mine enough to earn a profit after electric costs so they are taken offline, and then subsequently replaced with more efficient miners with equal hashpower but with less overall electric consumption.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: InwardContour on July 06, 2014, 12:15:29 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Yes, and at equilibrium, the energy spent by the network has exactly the value of the minted coins.
Proof of Work = (literally) Proof of Energy Spent
There is no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware.

I would disagree with your statement about there being no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware. I would define efficient miners as machines that use less electricity per GHs then the network does as a whole.

Of course, mining hardware can become more efficient. The point is that does not matter with respect to the total power and/or energy consumption of the Bitcoin network. Look at the math above where I proved this to you.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7687843

Also, if that is too much to read then re-read this until you understand it:

Quote from: ernie- on July 06, 2014, 01:03:41 AM

Your theory doesn't match the facts. People just keep adding more mining hardware until the electricity consumption is as much as they can stand. The diff rises and they get less BTC than they were getting with the lower efficiency setup.

See yet?

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: InwardContour on July 06, 2014, 12:15:29 AM

I would disagree with your statement about there being no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware. I would define efficient miners as machines that use less electricity per GHs then the network does as a whole.

Your theory doesn't match the facts. People just keep adding more mining hardware until the electricity consumption is as much as they can stand. The diff rises and they get less BTC than they were getting with the lower efficiency setup.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: InwardContour on July 04, 2014, 11:11:43 PM

Quote from: brenzi on July 04, 2014, 07:15:05 AM

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

Efficiency of mining hardware has no effect on energy consumption of the network. It only drives difficulty.

This is not true. If more efficient miners are on the network then the average energy consumption per THs on the network will be lower. As the difficulty increases, less efficient miners will take their machine offline as it will be consuming more energy then the bitcoin it produces will pay for.

Yes, and at equilibrium, the energy spent by the network has exactly the value of the minted coins.
Proof of Work = (literally) Proof of Energy Spent
There is no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware.

I would disagree with your statement about there being no such thing as "efficient" mining hardware. I would define efficient miners as machines that use less electricity per GHs then the network does as a whole.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Yes, efficiency does not matter when calculating the power consumption of the entire Bitcoin network.

Power consumption only depends on five things: the exchange rate of BTC, the era, the average amount of fees per hour, the cost of energy, and the average gross profit margin of the miners.

Watch this:

x = exchange rate [USD/BTC]
e = era [0..32] (we are currently in era 1)
f = average fees per hour [BTC/hour]
c = cost of energy [USD/kWh]
g = average gross profit margin [unitless ratio]

From the era we can caclulate the average hourly BTC subsidy rate:

s = 6(50/2^e) [BTC/hour]

And the amount of BTC all the miners in the world would make per hour:

b = s + f [BTC/hour]

From this we can calculate the amount of USD per hour all the miners in the world would make:

u = b(x) [USD/hour]

Given the worldwide average gross profit margin the amount spent worldwide on energy would be:

u(1 - g) [USD/hour]

And finally, the worldwide power consumption would be:

P = u(1 - g)/c [kW]

  = b(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]
  = (s + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]
  = (6(50/2^e) + f)(x)(1 - g)/c [kW]

Notice that efficiency does not enter into this equation and does not matter.

You do not need to know or estimate the average overall efficiency of the mining network unless you want to calculate the difficulty and/or hashrate.

InwardContour

sr. member

Activity: 644

Merit: 260

Quote from: brenzi on July 04, 2014, 07:15:05 AM

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

Efficiency of mining hardware has no effect on energy consumption of the network. It only drives difficulty.

This is not true. If more efficient miners are on the network then the average energy consumption per THs on the network will be lower. As the difficulty increases, less efficient miners will take their machine offline as it will be consuming more energy then the bitcoin it produces will pay for.

brenzi

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 10

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

Efficiency of mining hardware has no effect on energy consumption of the network. It only drives difficulty.

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: Skele on July 04, 2014, 01:58:36 AM

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

The problem would be worse if the bitcoin price rises, as mega farms could afford more energy to waste.

Skele

full member

Activity: 224

Merit: 100

VocalPlatform.com

Technology stills evolving, more efficient mining hardware will appears, adding that not only Bitcoin has energy consumption problems, the rest of the world needs now alternative clean forms of energy that i believe are being researched so hard right now...

Besides, current prices are too low, some things would be different if Bitcoin goes to the thousand again...

brenzi

member

Activity: 113

Merit: 10

Quote from: DannyElfman on July 03, 2014, 12:12:35 AM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 09:57:29 PM

Quote from: BurtW on July 02, 2014, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 08:27:58 PM

I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.

There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching.

Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs.

PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

PoS would simply make Bitcoin almost centralized since so few control so high of a percentage of all the coins

I have the same concern with PoW mining, so I don't see the difference

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: DannyElfman on July 03, 2014, 12:12:35 AM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 09:57:29 PM

PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

PoS would simply make Bitcoin almost centralized since so few control so high of a percentage of all the coins
[/quote]
So we don't have to discuss that as a possible option/solution. Cool.

DannyElfman

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 09:57:29 PM

Quote from: BurtW on July 02, 2014, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 08:27:58 PM

I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.

There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching.

Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs.

PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

PoS would simply make Bitcoin almost centralized since so few control so high of a percentage of all the coins

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: BurtW on July 02, 2014, 08:45:33 PM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 08:27:58 PM

I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.

There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching.

Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs.

PoS has it's problems, it's currently on the prohibited changes list. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Prohibited_changes

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 08:27:58 PM

I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.

There are dozens and dozens of theads discussing the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network and proposals on how to "fix" it - mostly by going from POW to POS but there are some others to be found with some searching.

Just search for "Bitcoin" and "POS" and you will find some hard fork proposals that might interest you but, of course, do not interest any of the miners who just bought ASICs.

ernie-

sr. member

Activity: 252

Merit: 250

Quote from: BurtW on July 02, 2014, 05:34:02 PM

Quote from: ernie- on July 02, 2014, 05:12:20 PM

More than half of all the 21million bitcoins that were ever designed to exist are already out there in circulation. Mining new coins is not important to liquidity, we just need to find 144 blocks each day for transactions to ride on, it no longer requires many coins in those blocks as we have enough in circulation, so it might as well just be the one coin. I don't think waiting until 2029 is the answer, the world will be struggling for oil and coal around then unless something else happens to curb world demand.

Oh.

You are suggesting a change to the protocol. Not just any change but a change that would cause a hard fork. And, not just any hard fork but a hard fork that would greatly punish the miners that switch to your suggested alternate protocol (only 1 BTC/block) versus staying on the original protocol (25 BTC/block).

So, it will never happen. And just so you know when I said never, I meant never and there is no need to try to argue for the various virtues of the proposal - unless you actually like talking to a walls or trying to move mountains.

I am quite sure there will be more BTC hard forks with protocol changes. I have read some of the proposals. I don't think there has been much discussion on energy saving though.

BurtW

legendary

Activity: 2646

Merit: 1137

All paid signature campaigns should be banned.

Quote from: DannyElfman on July 02, 2014, 05:31:35 PM

]The theory is that there will be enough TX volume that TX fees make up for the lower block subsidies over time

Yes, of course.

BTW have you (or anyone else) seen a good technical thread that tries to estimate the fees over time. For a project I am doing I need to combine the chart I just published with a sound estimate as to how the fees are going to grow over time. Just wondering if anyone has spotted such a thread anywhere.

Topic: . - page 4. (Read 24722 times)