People will try to find the most weak spots of bitcoin and try to hit it there, it will always be like that until end of universe because let's be honest with each other there is no way that financial sector will just come out and say "bitcoin is so awesome that banks are now useless".
They will keep buying it, invest on it, even say good things about it but in the end they are not going to accept the fact that bitcoin is far superior than any other method of finance, fiat sucks and banks sucks even harder, they literally steal your money to grow bigger and bigger, for a bank to be successful you have to be poorer, that is literally the way they make money, their aim is to get all the money in the world.
This is why they will blame bitcoin with whatever they can, including wattage which makes ZERO sense when they spend soooo much more.
Topic: Total power used to create the Bitcoin blockchain (Read 299 times)
Working on it...
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Eureka, I have found the culprits, now we can point the finger at the ones truly responsables for global warming..
It's Romania and its outrageous internet speeds.
Just think, if every Romanian would use its grotesque
and monstrous internet connection at full capacity just for one minute a month...Let's see..
500Mbit/s > 60MB > 60 seconds, that's 3.6 GB a day.
You've said 0.0039kWh per 10 MB, so that's 1.4Khw a day, but there are 365 days and 20 million of you so that's 10 billion kWh/year or 20% of the power you produce in a year.
That's for one minute of full speed a day.
Time for a UN resolution limiting your speeds at some 10Mbits and tax you 50 euros a month.
Energy Expended
This one will soon need a new line, at current speeds we're doing at least 50,000,000,000 with best efficiency gear.
Ha ha! Good one.
Romania does have awesome internet speed but please don't send in the UN; there's too much bureaucracy already!
My full node at home used about 50 Watts. By comparison to a centrally heated bank branch with several staff who drive to work, quite a big energy saving, and I don't have to go there to stand around in a queue. The blockchain itself, although it does admitedly use far more energy that we would like it to, could be compared to the entire finance sector plus services plus outsourced services such as workplace anti-fraud and employee retention bonus. It is centuries of overpaid loyal employees who created trustworthy conventional currency, so how much CO2 had those cost ?
The office light bulb in a major Wall Street finance institution is the wrong CO2e to compare to Bitcoin, and they might have paid some third world charlie to offset their carbon emissions from that light bulb. The other CO2 caused by all things bought with all of the gross salaries plus bonuses plus construction plus other spending by those institutions all causes concrete to be bought, precious things for someone to be bought, all causing CO2e. There is a big cost of loyal employees.
Using 2018 figures, as this years' are incomplete, US GDP was about 20.5 $TN (20.5 x10^12 US$). US CO2 was about 5 GT (5 x10^9 Metric Tons; 16 Tons per capita per annum before imports). So for every $4100 issued in the US, on average 1 Metric Ton (1000kg) of CO2 blows out in the USA (not counting other CO2 elsewhere needed to make components and imports).
Now how does the CO2e of all the money creation by conventional $ finance in three decades compare to the CO2e of all the 21M Bitcoins which will ever be made ? Are there other harms caused by creation of conventional $ ?
The office light bulb in a major Wall Street finance institution is the wrong CO2e to compare to Bitcoin, and they might have paid some third world charlie to offset their carbon emissions from that light bulb. The other CO2 caused by all things bought with all of the gross salaries plus bonuses plus construction plus other spending by those institutions all causes concrete to be bought, precious things for someone to be bought, all causing CO2e. There is a big cost of loyal employees.
Using 2018 figures, as this years' are incomplete, US GDP was about 20.5 $TN (20.5 x10^12 US$). US CO2 was about 5 GT (5 x10^9 Metric Tons; 16 Tons per capita per annum before imports). So for every $4100 issued in the US, on average 1 Metric Ton (1000kg) of CO2 blows out in the USA (not counting other CO2 elsewhere needed to make components and imports).
Now how does the CO2e of all the money creation by conventional $ finance in three decades compare to the CO2e of all the 21M Bitcoins which will ever be made ? Are there other harms caused by creation of conventional $ ?
Nice. I can think of additional power used that might not be in the calculations.
Every look up of the blockchain, every time a client is fired up, this must also at least take some power as it is all transferring data right? And the inefficiency of most devices or even the internet speed if we understand like in Asia where I am many are on old devices and slow internet. This must all account for more power being used:)
Every look up of the blockchain, every time a client is fired up, this must also at least take some power as it is all transferring data right? And the inefficiency of most devices or even the internet speed if we understand like in Asia where I am many are on old devices and slow internet. This must all account for more power being used:)
Working on it...
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Eureka, I have found the culprits, now we can point the finger at the ones truly responsables for global warming..
It's Romania and its outrageous internet speeds.
Just think, if every Romanian would use its grotesque
and monstrous internet connection at full capacity just for one minute a month...Let's see..
500Mbit/s > 60MB > 60 seconds, that's 3.6 GB a day.
You've said 0.0039kWh per 10 MB, so that's 1.4Khw a day, but there are 365 days and 20 million of you so that's 10 billion kWh/year or 20% of the power you produce in a year.
That's for one minute of full speed a day.
Time for a UN resolution limiting your speeds at some 10Mbits and tax you 50 euros a month.
Energy Expended
This one will soon need a new line, at current speeds we're doing at least 50,000,000,000 with best efficiency gear.
All the required work plus a presentation had already been done.
Cryptocurrency Proof-of-Work Mining Energy Consumption | Tyler Bain
Cryptocurrency Proof-of-Work Mining Energy Consumption | Tyler Bain
I am not really sure if it's a good idea to compare the electricity consumption of those songs listed above with Bitcoins'. They don't really look as important/valuable as Bitcoin, and probably don't deserve to consume too much. In my opinion, it's OK for Bitcoin to consume lots of electricity for good uses and for security, as long as the energy is efficiently used... and comes from good/clean sources.
Much like Bitcoin, the music used in the example has the ability to transcend cultural and language barriers. I hope that one day, Bitcoin is just as popular as any one of those songs; hence the comparison.
I am not really sure if it's a good idea to compare the electricity consumption of those songs listed above with Bitcoins'. They don't really look as important/valuable as Bitcoin, and probably don't deserve to consume too much. In my opinion, it's OK for Bitcoin to consume lots of electricity for good uses and for security, as long as the energy is efficiently used... and comes from good/clean sources.
source: https://twitter.com/blockbain/status/1304223971148210177
Hash Rate
ASIC Efficiency
Hash Rate Efficiency
Energy Expended
1"I estimated the minimum #bitcoin network electrical energy by year with on-chain & equipment data.
(hashes/yr (colored by era))* (average miner J/Th) = energy/year
Total Energy Minimum: 96,029,700,113 kWh (Block 1 - 647,693)"
1Quoted from T.₿ain PΣ C₿P
@blockbain
Hash Rate
ASIC Efficiency
Hash Rate Efficiency
Energy Expended
1"I estimated the minimum #bitcoin network electrical energy by year with on-chain & equipment data.
(hashes/yr (colored by era))* (average miner J/Th) = energy/year
Total Energy Minimum: 96,029,700,113 kWh (Block 1 - 647,693)"
1Quoted from T.₿ain PΣ C₿P
@blockbain
https://twitter.com/blockbain/status/1305539345991036933
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
Well that simplifies things! Thanks Mr. Last of the V8s
https://twitter.com/blockbain/status/1305539345991036933
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
You are taking all the fun out of doing the work from scratch.
https://twitter.com/blockbain/status/1305539345991036933
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
a fair few
most of the work's been done. when in doubt ask @blockbain. he's an amenable chap and knows all about the stuffs
just needs totting up to get your answer
me like.
lets pretend todays power use.
off the top of my head 6000 megawatts per hour. for sept 14 2020.
i will show some math for todays guess.
bitcoin hash rate charts. show 125-145 eh daily.
that is
135eh average or
135,000 ph or
135,000,000 th
at 50 watts a th that is 6,750,000,000 watts
or 6,750,000 Kwatts
or 6750 mega watts.
some will argue that the network is 40 watts a th.
that is 5,400 mega watts.
so we are using 5,400-6750 mega watts an hour.
roughly all of niagara falls usa and canada power plants.
all ballpark in my head math. but to be fair i did this breakdown for daily numbers at least 25 times since 2014.
if you said 5000 to 7000 megawatts an hour for sept 14 2020 i am fairly sure you have guessed correctly.
lets pretend todays power use.
off the top of my head 6000 megawatts per hour. for sept 14 2020.
i will show some math for todays guess.
bitcoin hash rate charts. show 125-145 eh daily.
that is
135eh average or
135,000 ph or
135,000,000 th
at 50 watts a th that is 6,750,000,000 watts
or 6,750,000 Kwatts
or 6750 mega watts.
some will argue that the network is 40 watts a th.
that is 5,400 mega watts.
so we are using 5,400-6750 mega watts an hour.
roughly all of niagara falls usa and canada power plants.
all ballpark in my head math. but to be fair i did this breakdown for daily numbers at least 25 times since 2014.
if you said 5000 to 7000 megawatts an hour for sept 14 2020 i am fairly sure you have guessed correctly.
Just a few moments ago this question popped to my mind. I was curious and asked myself how much raw power was used in the process of building the Bitcoin blockchain.
Actually this is a very interesting and research paper worthy question to answer, after all we're building the new digital pyramids of our era brick by brick - or better block by block. I started the question in the Wall Observer thread, but I'd like to concentrate the discussion and the research in a specific thread so it won't get buried under thousands of pages.
xhomerx10 started to work on it already and just came up with a very interesting observation, that even the bandwidth should be accounted in the equation to get an accurate picture.
Here are the postings from the WO thread:
Possible to estimate, yes; but I don’t see how it could be easy. That would require cost/efficiency estimates for every generation of miners: CPU (various optimized implementations and CPU models), GPU (ditto), FPGA, every generation of ASIC...
Does a collection of those historical data even exist anywhere? If you folks discussing this were to gather in the first instance, the effort may be worth a research paper. Maybe one already exists (with data up to some past point).
I don’t think that the historical electricity cost would give a clear view of the current security of the Bitcoin blockchain. With ASIC hardware, you could easily outrun the whole early CPU-mined Bitcoin network at drastically lower energy cost! Of course, as you continued rewriting blockchain history, sooner or later, you would slam into the historical point at which the real Bitcoin network’s hashrate exceeded your hardware’s capabilities. From that point onwards, you would just get further and further behind with your fake blockchain, as the chaintip of the real Bitcoin network keeps advancing faster than you can chase it.*
Still, yes, the energy-cost accounting would be historically interesting.
The real kind!
(* And one of the marvellous properties of the Nakamoto Consensus is that the “real” chain can be selected by an isolated node with no information except the block data alleging one or more consensus-rule valid chains. Most-work (not “longest”) chain wins, and that’s that. Not even a trustworthy realtime clock source is required. It is the whole point of how this is supposed to work; but somehow, I often see people missing it—usually when they want to suggest some “improvement” which would break Bitcoin’s security without even achieving what they expect.)
Actually this is a very interesting and research paper worthy question to answer, after all we're building the new digital pyramids of our era brick by brick - or better block by block. I started the question in the Wall Observer thread, but I'd like to concentrate the discussion and the research in a specific thread so it won't get buried under thousands of pages.
xhomerx10 started to work on it already and just came up with a very interesting observation, that even the bandwidth should be accounted in the equation to get an accurate picture.
Here are the postings from the WO thread:
An interesting question just popped in my mind:
How much kWh was used to create the current Blockchain?
Should be somehow possible to calculate it based on the given mining hardware and mining difficulty.
How much kWh was used to create the current Blockchain?
Should be somehow possible to calculate it based on the given mining hardware and mining difficulty.
From inception or for each new block?
Purely from a scientific point of view. And from inception, thus the genesis block.
Would be nice to see(feel) the monumental work and energy that was put to secure the blockchain and to get an impression and a feel of how much power was used to create this distributed ledger.
Would be nice to see(feel) the monumental work and energy that was put to secure the blockchain and to get an impression and a feel of how much power was used to create this distributed ledger.
An interesting question just popped in my mind:
How much kWh was used to create the current Blockchain?
Should be somehow possible to calculate it based on the given mining hardware and mining difficulty.
How much kWh was used to create the current Blockchain?
Should be somehow possible to calculate it based on the given mining hardware and mining difficulty.
Possible to estimate, yes; but I don’t see how it could be easy. That would require cost/efficiency estimates for every generation of miners: CPU (various optimized implementations and CPU models), GPU (ditto), FPGA, every generation of ASIC...
Does a collection of those historical data even exist anywhere? If you folks discussing this were to gather in the first instance, the effort may be worth a research paper. Maybe one already exists (with data up to some past point).
Purely from a scientific point of view. And from inception, thus the genesis block.
Would be nice to see(feel) the monumental work and energy that was put to secure the blockchain and to get an impression and a feel of how much power was used to create this distributed ledger.
Would be nice to see(feel) the monumental work and energy that was put to secure the blockchain and to get an impression and a feel of how much power was used to create this distributed ledger.
I don’t think that the historical electricity cost would give a clear view of the current security of the Bitcoin blockchain. With ASIC hardware, you could easily outrun the whole early CPU-mined Bitcoin network at drastically lower energy cost! Of course, as you continued rewriting blockchain history, sooner or later, you would slam into the historical point at which the real Bitcoin network’s hashrate exceeded your hardware’s capabilities. From that point onwards, you would just get further and further behind with your fake blockchain, as the chaintip of the real Bitcoin network keeps advancing faster than you can chase it.*
Still, yes, the energy-cost accounting would be historically interesting.
purely for science
The real kind!
(* And one of the marvellous properties of the Nakamoto Consensus is that the “real” chain can be selected by an isolated node with no information except the block data alleging one or more consensus-rule valid chains. Most-work (not “longest”) chain wins, and that’s that. Not even a trustworthy realtime clock source is required. It is the whole point of how this is supposed to work; but somehow, I often see people missing it—usually when they want to suggest some “improvement” which would break Bitcoin’s security without even achieving what they expect.)
What people forget on these type calculations is all those that mined but didn't win a block, that is part of the calculations as that is what creates the dif.
Working on it...
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Here are the top ten viewed YouTube music videos and the number of times they were viewed (while I compiled this tonight).
The average video play time is ~ 4 minutes which equates to about 40 MB of data transfer per video per view.
The total number of views for the 10 songs above is 43808209188.
This translates to 683408063.3328 kWh of energy for the data transfer alone.
I'm just warming up. Thanks for the confidence and the pressure JJG, it will help me to achieve the optimal level of arousal required to complete my mission.
Wait, should I even bother to include data transfer for pool mining or just the CPU/GPU/FPGA/ASIC power required for hashing?
Don't worry @Hueristic. I'll use the network hash rate in my calculation to ensure the energy usage from all miners is included.
edit: SMF seems to insert superfluous breaks when translating BBcode to HTML.
Transferring 10 MB of data uses about the amount of energy in a AA battery which is 0.0039 kWh
Here are the top ten viewed YouTube music videos and the number of times they were viewed (while I compiled this tonight).
| Song_Title | _Artist_ | _Uniform_Resource_Locator_ | _Number_of_Views_ |
| Despacito | Luis_Fonsi_ft._Daddy_Yankee | https://youtu.be/kJQP7kiw5Fk | 6965149726 |
| Baby_Shark | PINKFONG | https://youtu.be/XqZsoesa55w | 6555048616 |
| Shape_of_You | Ed_Sheeran | https://youtu.be/JGwWNGJdvx8 | 4974976171 |
| See_You_Again | Wiz_Khalifa_ft._Charlie_Puth | https://youtu.be/RgKAFK5djSk | 4721137015 |
| Uptown_Funk | Mark_Ronson_ft._Bruno_Mars | https://youtu.be/OPf0YbXqDm0 | 3945458571 |
| Gangnam_Style_ | PSY | https://youtu.be/9bZkp7q19f0 | 3782347210 |
| Sorry | Justin_Bieber | https://youtu.be/fRh_vgS2dFE | 3338412458 |
| Sugar | Maroon_5 | https://youtu.be/09R8_2nJtjg | 3281040028 |
| Roar | Katy_Perry | https://youtu.be/CevxZvSJLk8 | 3172242295 |
| Thinking_Out_Loud | Ed_Sheeran | https://youtu.be/lp-EO5I60KA | 3072397098 |
The average video play time is ~ 4 minutes which equates to about 40 MB of data transfer per video per view.
The total number of views for the 10 songs above is 43808209188.
This translates to 683408063.3328 kWh of energy for the data transfer alone.
I'm just warming up. Thanks for the confidence and the pressure JJG, it will help me to achieve the optimal level of arousal required to complete my mission.
Wait, should I even bother to include data transfer for pool mining or just the CPU/GPU/FPGA/ASIC power required for hashing?
Don't worry @Hueristic. I'll use the network hash rate in my calculation to ensure the energy usage from all miners is included.
edit: SMF seems to insert superfluous breaks when translating BBcode to HTML.
Damn, that's the spirit - awesome !
I was thinking of only the power required to run the hash rate. But if transferring the block chain to thousands of different peers at a specific time (different sizes, varying amount of nodes, etc) makes an extra impact to the total power usage, it would be awesome to include it as well for the big picture.
My main idea is to have a given number to show how much raw power was put into building the blockchain, to show that it is not backed by nothing, but that we are building the new digital pyramids.
I was thinking of only the power required to run the hash rate. But if transferring the block chain to thousands of different peers at a specific time (different sizes, varying amount of nodes, etc) makes an extra impact to the total power usage, it would be awesome to include it as well for the big picture.
My main idea is to have a given number to show how much raw power was put into building the blockchain, to show that it is not backed by nothing, but that we are building the new digital pyramids.
Jump to: