Topic: Energy consumption will become an issue if bitcoin really breaks through - page 2. (Read 23459 times)

You are assuming that the future mining rigs will consume the same level of energy as the current ones. That is wrong in my opinion. As the technological advances are made, the mining rigs will become more energy efficient. Right now, none of the major players are involved and companies such as Bitmain, Asicminer and Innosilicon have almost a complete monopoly over this sector.

But in case there is a major spike in the Bitcoin exchange rates (i.e if it hits $50K or 100K per coin), then the demand for mining equipment will rocket upward and we can expect major players such as IBM to enter the mining rig sector. With their entry, there will be more innovation, and the performance and the energy efficiency of the rigs will go up.

Bitcoin will never take the place of the dollar. Cryptocurrency will be only one of the types of means of payment and is not able to replace the national currency.
Regarding energy consumption for the extraction and use of cryptocurrency, here I do not see any problems. Basically this problem is far-fetched, cryptocurrency does not consume more energy than other types of human activity. In addition, alternative sources of energy production, such as the energy of the sun and wind, continue to develop very quickly and efficiently. These are inexhaustible sources of energy and their production is becoming cheaper.

Six years after the OP it's quite interesting to revisit the argument:

The OP still holds IMO. Empirical facts have proven the theory.

So I suggest we face the inconvenient truth:

• PoW Mining serves the sole purpose of decentralization
• Bitcoin isn't decentralized! See the Hashrate distribution among pools and recognize that (at least) BTC.com and AntPool are owned by one company: bitmain. I'd say that's more of a consortium than of decentralization.
• PoW therefore has failed its promise.

So why are we wasting 70TWh/y today?

That was in the past, I think the power issue is no longer a problem because currently there are power grids that are completely untouched in Europe and North America. European countries are Switzerland, Belarus, and Netherlands. In North America we have Canada (Quebec), where there is huge amount of power at very low cost 0.04 kw/h maximum.  

a motivation for environmental friendly products.

Early bitcoin investors believed in ideas not in quick money.

Yes. We are all need electricity because we are all surrounded by technology. It has now become part of our daily lives. Almost devices we used at home and in our businesses are running because of electricity. It may be the issue, as we go along electricity will be more expensive as the days goes by. That is why we should think about shifting to energy resources.

Let's say that PPC has equal security, etc, to bitcoin, that both of them have the same transaction fees, and PPC uses dramatically lower energy consumption. What would cause a shift to PPC? It seems to me that there is no economic incentive for anyone to switch from bitcoin, now and in the near future.

I don't think government intervention will change anything. There will always be some government somewhere that won't restrict PoW mining.
4 years after the OP, we're still at the same point. The problem has maybe gained a wider awareness, but solutions are either not very popular (PPC, NXT...) or need yet to be proven (Ethereum's Casper PoS, Cardano's Ouroboros PoS)

edit: there's not only PoS solutions. IOTA could be an ecological alternative too.

Energy consumption of the bitcoin network continues to increase. visa, eg, is thousands of times more efficient per transaction.

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mining-electricity-consumption-ethereum-energy-climate-change

What is the solution to this? The way I see it, as the value of bitcoins increase, the energy consumption will continue to increase. The miners will not care how much electricity they are using and what the carbon footprint is (for the same reason that so many ppl have caused tremendous damage to the planet in order to make money, because the consequences may not affect the one causing the problems). Therefore the limits on the use of electricity will be imposed by government. This will shift the miners to use renewable energy.

I do not see increased energy consumption as increasing market cap of PoS coins (assuming that the security is equivalent), because there is no economic incentive for someone (or all bitcoiners) to move from bitcoin to ethereum, eg. But, if there is government interference in bitcoin mining, will that shift the interest to PoS coins?

I don't know, have been mentioning it for years so may have to do it myself.  Well heated pools are good things.  Also dual use engenders efficiency gains that reduce mining cost and more mining is also a good thing.

If you haven't spent thousands of dollars on mining equipment, yes!

Bitcoin can be replaced by a proof-of-stake currency. Seems to be an elegant solution to the energy consumption issue, isn't it?

And if you own a company you pay a lower electricity price than regular people because the German government is corrupt like hell

That's actually a really clever idea.  Someone's bound to invent it eventually. 

Actually, Germany would be a good place for mining, cost wise.  Because it's so subsidized in Germany, they have one of the highest rates of solar panel use in the world.

Waiting for the "Heating my pool to tropical temperatures while feeding my pool hashes" rig.  The miner/water-heater combination!

Dunno if this could lead to situation where in countries like Germany there would be large pools of rather inefficient, but cheap hardware which is only run when energy cost is low or zero...

At the point when energy is the dominant cost and it nearly equals the value of the mining revenue, then miners have two ways to increase profits. One is to add capacity and the other is to reduce energy usage. I think that rising energy costs and a rising difficulty will favor energy efficiency as a way to increase profit since a higher energy efficiency will reduce costs and extend the productive life of the mining equipment.

Thanks for your very interesting review.

At first thought, I didn't agree with you because it could well happen that BTC is no longer traded in the sense of "full reserve" (Who really knows if mtgox still operates with full reserves?). As soon as fractional reserve comes into play, I guess M2 would be the correct reference. But you might be right indeed, because the leverage ratio would not benefit the miner but the exchanges or BTC banks. But what would happen if mining (or pooling) would be taken over by banks?

Yes, my calculation is the worst-case limit. But the absolute numbers are not my concern. It's the underlying dependencies that are worrying me. Even if I'm overestimating by a few decades, it remains an awful lot of energy.

However: Your point is valid and I should mention it in the OP.


This is true and has been mentioned upthread. One should keep in mind that hardware needs energy to be produced, replacing mining gear more often reduces the overall lifetime efficiency of the gear and therefore (at least partly, but possibly even over-) consumes the gain in "runtime efficiency".


Thanks again for your reasoning on the matter.

Here's a few nitpicks with your assumptions/reasoning, that do change the results a bit:

1. The monetary base is about 1.2 trillion dollars http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MBCURRCIR?cid=124. This is a much better approximation than M2, because most of what goes into M2 (and M1 for that matter) is actually the value of outstanding bank loans. Bitcoin will not replace loans, so it can't "soak up" that value. So you're overestimating future BTC value (assuming it replaces USD entirely) by 10x.

That alone brings down energy consumption to less than 1% of the world's total. Other effects may come into play depending on the nature of bitcoin's behaviour as money (but I can only speculate whether it will drive value up or down).

2. Then your steady state formula assumes equal energy efficiency for all miners. And therefore you assume all miners are at the edge of profitability. Realistically only a small fraction of miners will ever be at that point, as long as energy efficiency increases over time.
Example: Assume 50% of mining hardware 1GH/Joule and 50% is 10GH/Joule, and 1GH/Joule is the breakeven point. Then energy consumption of the network is only 55% of what the everyone-has-the-same-efficiency model would predict. This can be even more drastic (10%/90% split). In other words, real energy consumption can only be equal to or lower than what your model predicts.

Yes, energy efficiency doesn't matter in a steady state world, because eventually enough hardware is brought online to make everyone uniformly efficient, and competition drives revenues down to electrical cost.
But as long as Moore's law holds, there will be significant increases in energy efficiency every year. Which means each year it's profitable to bring new hardware online that outclasses the existing stuff, and takes a while to drop down to near-zero profitability. This keeps electrical usage down by driving the least efficient miners out of the market on a regular basis.
Moreover it introduces the need for mining investments to pay back their fixed costs in a relatively short time (less than a decade), which means that mining cost is mostly dominated by fixed hardware costs, rather than electricity, as long as hardware efficiency keeps increasing.
I honestly don't know what the adjusted formula should look like.

This doesn't change the total amount of money Bitcoin mining will consume, but it does change what portion of it is spent as electricity, versus hiring electrical engineers, or making chips.

3. Subsidy halving means that, if Bitcoin mining is as competitive as you model, miners can't expect to make money for more than four years before needing to throw out their hardware and start again. This means that they will not get into mining unless they expect they can make a net profit in that short time.

Disclaimer: Obviously we're both speculating, no one really knows the economics of mining well enough to actually make good projections right now.

homo sapiens sapiens )

How to spell in Latin un(der)wise ?!

Those "animals too" must be punished somehow
 for all that satanic HELL they keep on the Earth.