Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin already using too much power by 2020? - page 6. (Read 6843 times)

legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1001
No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.
Solar collectors plantation in the middle of Sahara would save all humanity energy problems, an it is actually not a problem to put them there.
The problem is transferring that collected energy over extremely long distance (power loss is simply to severe), there is also no 'battery technology' available to save collected energy for later.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
Backtrack a little: you're comparing solar to the cost of running a diesel generator in Italy, paying $4.725/gal. You don't want to do that, don't mine in Italy with a diesel generator. Because Chinese miners are paying $.03/KWh, you'll go broke on diesel or solar.
You're focusing on little things, the point is we aren't talking about china being the only miners, and it really doesn't matter what china is paying t mine. What matters to miners is if it is profitable for them to mine, and if the electric cost seems to expensive where they live but yet they want to mine and are willing to put up an investment for solar panels it can definitely work and work decently.
But mining on solar, diesel, or even grid power across most western countries *is* unprofitable. That's why Bitcoin is mined in places like China and Iceland (where bitcoin use isn't even legal). The solar panels *will never pay for themselves*. Mining on grid power, which is constant, doesn't require batteries and inverters and stuff, and is far cheaper, still doesn't make sense. *That's why it's not done much.*
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.
Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal Smiley

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.
No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.
The point is it is an investment, a current killowatt solar setup is around $1,100 which puts out around 6-7 kwh a day in favorable conditions.

Now you still need to buy a diesel generator those aren't free you're definitely right, it is MUCH cheaper to do that and can run through the night.

Let's say you live in Italy, a gallon of diesel cost 4.725 usd. Ok so a generator running at 30% efficiency is going to produce around 11.5kwh per gallon, lets say to keep this easy you use .6 a gallon to get the kwh equivalent of the solar panel.

So let's say you pay 200 for the generator then you are $900 usd in savings compared to the kwh of the solar panels.

So you would pay $2.835 a day in fuel to get the same power output of the panels (not taking in volatile fuel rates) This means it would take the panels 318 days to be a better solution for your electric needs. A long time sure, but again i am sure we can all agree no one would mine on diesel.

These solar panels of yours, they work good at night? Or do we only mine when the sun is at the apex, because difficulty only increases, by, what, 8% today?
The math is limiting to 7kwh a day and a battery in use, but miners don't need to be even really used in this situation. The point is if it is a longer term use the solar panels are an investment that seems to pay off.

Backtrack a little: you're comparing solar to the cost of running a diesel generator in Italy, paying $4.725/gal. You don't want to do that, don't mine in Italy with a diesel generator. Because Chinese miners are paying $.03/KWh, you'll go broke on diesel or solar.

TL;DR: FAIK, solar can not compete with coal, price-wise. If you have real data I can look at (like a link), we can start from there.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.
Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal Smiley

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.
No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.
The point is it is an investment, a current killowatt solar setup is around $1,100 which puts out around 6-7 kwh a day in favorable conditions.

Now you still need to buy a diesel generator those aren't free you're definitely right, it is MUCH cheaper to do that and can run through the night.

Let's say you live in Italy, a gallon of diesel cost 4.725 usd. Ok so a generator running at 30% efficiency is going to produce around 11.5kwh per gallon, lets say to keep this easy you use .6 a gallon to get the kwh equivalent of the solar panel.

So let's say you pay 200 for the generator then you are $900 usd in savings compared to the kwh of the solar panels.

So you would pay $2.835 a day in fuel to get the same power output of the panels (not taking in volatile fuel rates) This means it would take the panels 318 days to be a better solution for your electric needs. A long time sure, but again i am sure we can all agree no one would mine on diesel.

These solar panels of yours, they work good at night? Or do we only mine when the sun is at the apex, because difficulty only increases, by, what, 8% today?
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1007
What if ... Satoshi planned all that and created bitcoin so he can sell ASIC devices ? Huh
He owns more than 1 million Bitcoin, do you think he really need more?

I am surprised that people who talk about bitcoin's power usage are usually quiet about energy, time, effort needed to produce FIAT, mint gold bars and then guard it, transport it, replace old banknotes with new etc.
Creation of bitcoin and production of money can't be compared directly but I feel conventional money creation consumes more resources overall.
It all comes down to how you view it, but technically speaking traditional, paper money does use more resources overall to design, produce, and maintain over long-ish periods of time. Energy and effort are required to be put into all things, that is what gives commodities their values. If anyone could build a house without having to put a lot of energy into it, we wouldn't see buildings with $200k+ price tags.
legendary
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1001
What if ... Satoshi planned all that and created bitcoin so he can sell ASIC devices ? Huh
He owns more than 1 million Bitcoin, do you think he really need more?

I am surprised that people who talk about bitcoin's power usage are usually quiet about energy, time, effort needed to produce FIAT, mint gold bars and then guard it, transport it, replace old banknotes with new etc.
Creation of bitcoin and production of money can't be compared directly but I feel conventional money creation consumes more resources overall.
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.
Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal Smiley

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.
No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.
hero member
Activity: 798
Merit: 500
I think in your place the electricity is at high price, as in our country electricity and the consumption for mining is not at high price, we are also using the solar panels for that so we have zero expenditure on mining, you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?

See what I mean? You can't provide any content to support your statement. You don't know the actual price and energy that is wasted for fiat, though you are stating that Bitcoin mining is "a waste of energy" and definitely higher than fiat. All that yaddayadda about "cost of my laptop" have no relevance for this discussion, because I don't use it only for Bitcoin transactions.
Conversely, banks aren't only used to store your money. They assert and underwrite business ventures, they finance houses and cars, that sort of thing.
But, if you insist, it costs me exactly zero dollars and zero zero cents to secure my $100 bill. I keep it in my mattress, which I already have.

Quote

How much would it cost for me to send 100000$ USD to China?
You don't have $100k, so it'll cost you nothing. How often do you plan on sending the $100k you don't have to China?
My turn: How many bitcoins would it take you to wipe your butt, after realizing there's no toilet paper on the roll? See?! You can't wipe your butt with bitcoins, period! Checkmate! Roll Eyes

I can come up with outrageous shit that happens maybe once in a lifetime too. Though I've actually *did* wipe my butt with a dollar bill once, and I *never* had to send $100k to China.
AGD
legendary
Activity: 2070
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?

See what I mean? You can't provide any content to support your statement. You don't know the actual price and energy that is wasted for fiat, though you are stating that Bitcoin mining is "a waste of energy" and definitely higher than fiat. All that yaddayadda about "cost of my laptop" have no relevance for this discussion, because I don't use it only for Bitcoin transactions. How much would it cost for me to send 100000$ USD to China? How much would it cost to send the same amount in Bitcoin? Which transaction would be faster and which would be cheaper? See, Bitcoin has some obvious advantages, which justify a certain amount of energy to be used to secure the system.



member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?
AGD
legendary
Activity: 2070
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.
AGD
legendary
Activity: 2070
Merit: 1164
Keeper of the Private Key
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?
hero member
Activity: 630
Merit: 500
PM me to buy traffic for your site!
There's no doubt that there has to be a better solution than pow we have now. I'm not saying it's not working, but in the future we could try
some pos variation to stop waste of money on power and manufacturing mining equipement.  But so far, for now and still many years to come,
bitcoin is fine as it is, because the energy consumed by the network is nothing when you compare it to the alternatives.
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.
[/quote]

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost Smiley
hero member
Activity: 1050
Merit: 529
Yeah well it can happen, but relatively the electricity used is way lot Lee that you think. I am actually surprised that Denmark uses a lot less energy.
member
Activity: 103
Merit: 10
Electrical price isn't an issue, global warming is. With most countries using coal and natural gas as the primary source of energy, the Bitcoin mining industry can make an impact on the environment. Governments can try to reduce the profitability by introducing taxes for electrical bills. POS is not a suitable replacement as far as I can see; there is simply too much ASICs built solely for mining Bitcoins and SHA256 alt coins, changing Bitcoin to POS is extremely hard or impossible.
full member
Activity: 243
Merit: 101
yes you are write. Too much power bitcoins use by 2020.
Pages:
Jump to: