But the real disappointment is below:
~
Well, the transaction senders (output spenders) foot the bill due to the nature of the limitations the block size as miners must select which transactions they add, and they will definitely prefer the ones that pay more transaction fees. How this will impact the mining business is not something we can predict or understand (yet) but its certain that this amount of consumption cannot go on and be paid by a couple transaction creators as when broken down, it would be enormous. A simple transaction from 1 output to 2 outputs (receiver + change) would need to incur around 300 USD of fees (time of writing) in order to pay for the electricity alone
If one miner gets $250k and he would have to cover that from transactions alone, looking back at the exact last 3 blocks mined as I type:
728510 2022-03-22 12:58 14 minutes ago 3,351 Transactions
728509 2022-03-22 12:53 19 minutes ago 3,186 Transactions
Can you explain somehow to me how 250 000 / 3 000 =300?
Rather than copying digiconomist you would be better off dropping the entire section altogether. With things like this one below, you're just doing a disservice to bitcoin
https://i.imgur.com/rStPZuB.png
Stick to labeling addresses, please!!!
we work with cambdrige and its data and don't have to or want to copy anything from digiconomist. We just show data, don't do crypto polictics.
The KWh is calculated based on the GW consumption data from cambdrige. GW to KWh is pretty simple to calculate. Feel free to do the math backwards and you will reach 15.6 GW.
We are actually lower than most estimations and we have full faith in cambridge data being the most accurate.
The polluter pays principle has been applied.