Pages:
Author

Topic: Transaction cost in kWh - page 2. (Read 5110 times)

legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
October 02, 2014, 09:15:00 AM
#66
I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

Election costs are well known and studied. Are you assuming that interests won't compete for delegate seats like they do for normal politics?

ASIC costs and production isn't unique to Bitcoin. You realize that these are well known and documented and costs will naturally shrink with competition and scale. Why do you think you can buy a 20 dollar burner cell phone now?

How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study".

per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
October 02, 2014, 09:10:06 AM
#65
I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

None of this involves fantasy, but a recognition of current strengths and weaknesses and a discussion of future solutions.

Election costs are well known and studied. Are you assuming that interests won't compete for delegate seats like they do for normal politics?

ASIC costs and production isn't unique to Bitcoin. You realize that these are well known and documented costs and will naturally shrink with competition and scale. Why do you think you can buy a 20 dollar burner cell phone now? You do realize ASIC's exists in many cheap 10-20 dollar childrens toys, right?
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
October 02, 2014, 09:05:05 AM
#64

Strawman much? Who ever claimed 100% efficiency? ASIC's are 99% efficient at converting electricity to heat and the initial production costs need to be amortized across all units.


I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
October 02, 2014, 08:58:39 AM
#63
What are you talking about? there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently, other than heating the facility in winter, all the big mining farms do not try to utilize the heat at all. Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized, that only balance out the electricity cost. The hardware cost is still there, and most likely higher because now you want to use the heat, which means additional hardware components.

Correct. The initial investment costs for 22nm ASIC dev and testing is at least 5-10 million which has to be amortize across the costs of the products. The question is merely one of scale. If the costs have to be amortized over a few thousand miners than those miners will be very expensive. What if those costs are amortized over mass consumer items though? Space heaters, water heaters, ect??? We are talking about millions of units. What if you could buy a hot water heater that actually paid some of your electrical bill with transaction fees and block rewards?

There's also no proof there's political expense associated with DPoS. I'm a delegate in btsx, and I didn't spend anything to get voted in. Also, even if there is expense, as long as it stays within the eco-system, I don't see any problem with that. Unlike Bitcoin PoW, which transfers wealth out of the eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor and electric company.

BTSX is so small that the popularity contest doesn't involve much if any campaigning right now, just like if you ran for a local council position in a small town. There isn't much competition if any and the position typically just fills in the person of the best known name. With any political enterprise, as the stakes and interests scale up so do the campaign costs. As DPoS advocates indicate themselves, they expect industry leaders and prominent people who are not anonymous to become delegates(For social and security reasons). Controlling the currency would than be an important step that would indeed be lobbied for with millions of dollars spent on elections.

Current Fiat technically is a form of inflationary PoS. I could imagine in the future that some governments will likely co-opt an inflationary DPoS as well to give the illusion that people have control of their monetary system, much akin how democratic republics give the illusion that people have control of their representatives.

 I was just extrapolating the data and playing a "what if" BTSX overtook Bitcoin scenario. Where you are correct is BTSX will likely maintain extremely efficient and low costs for the election process. The reason for this is because it will be unlikely to ever grow much larger for many reasons I previously mentioned.


Bullshit, the energy being there doesn't mean it can be easily 100% efficiently utilized. Try convert sunlight into electricity with 100% efficiency? or build a simple household boiler with 100% efficiency?

In terms of heating the facility, it's usually a facility that doesn't need heating, most likely it needs cooling. Also it works only in winter.

Strawman much? Who ever claimed 100% efficiency? ASIC's are 99% efficient at converting electricity to heat and the initial production costs need to be amortized across all units.

Everyone worldwide needs to reheat food, dehydrate items , dry clothes, heat water year round. Most people worldwide need to heat their homes during half the year, some people need to do so most of the year.
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
October 02, 2014, 08:51:44 AM
#62
Quote
there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently
Yes. It is basics of physics.

Quote
other than heating the facility in winter
and this is not "work" in terms of "proof-of-work"

Quote
Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized
Perpetuum Mobile? Shocked Again? Oh, no!


Bullshit, the energy being there doesn't mean it can be easily 100% efficiently utilized. Try convert sunlight into electricity with 100% efficiency? or build a simple household boiler with 100% efficiency?

In terms of heating the facility, it's usually a facility that doesn't need heating, most likely it needs cooling. Also it works only in winter.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
October 02, 2014, 08:47:05 AM
#61
Quote
there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently
Yes. It is basics of physics.

Quote
other than heating the facility in winter
and this is not "work" in terms of "proof-of-work"

Quote
Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized
Perpetuum Mobile? Shocked Again? Oh, no!
legendary
Activity: 1806
Merit: 1003
October 02, 2014, 08:38:45 AM
#60
This is a FACT, and since it's a fact, therefore it will be true even when Bitcoin has no inflation (ie. when coin supply run out, the PoW expense will still exist). Therefore, YOU are the one that is confusing inflation with this perpetual PoW expense. I have no problem with Bitcoin inflation, at all.

If heat is a product instead of something thrown away and ASIC costs are amortized with block rewards and transaction fees than what is the problem?

Are you suggesting future mass ASIC manufacturing/shipping costs will be higher than campaign political costs? Bitshares would be more interesting if Daniel stuck with TaPoS instead of settling on DPoS.
There are security and future political costs with campaigning and lobbying that will need to be considered when you introduce more human involvement into securing the blockchain.

I suppose there are limits with how many things we need to heat on earth though.... but this isn't a pressing dilemma.

What are you talking about? there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently, other than heating the facility in winter, all the big mining farms do not try to utilize the heat at all. Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized, that only balance out the electricity cost. The hardware cost is still there, and most likely higher because now you want to use the heat, which means additional hardware components.

There's also no proof there's political expense associated with DPoS. I'm a delegate in btsx, and I didn't spend anything to get voted in. Also, even if there is expense, as long as it stays within the eco-system, I don't see any problem with that. Unlike Bitcoin PoW, which transfers wealth out of the eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor and electric company.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 523
October 02, 2014, 03:44:25 AM
#59
Is there a chart which shows estimated transaction cost in kWh?
How much bitcoin network at all (miners, nodes, lite clients) takes energy for transaction proceeding?

My calculations are too weak:
Current bitcoin difficulty hashrate is 250 000 000 GH/s
Modern asic miners do 1000 GH/s for 600 W
So, the whole network runs as 250 000 such devices
(In fact the current miners take more energy)
In an hour bitcoin network takes 150 000 kWh power and produces 3000 transactions
So, one transaction costs today at least 50 kWh (this is low estimate)

Are there more correct estimations and time-graph?
Thank you. Sorry, English is not my native language.


According to the ATM Industry Association there are about 3 million ATMs installed worldwide. Unfortunately I can't find the article at their site where I saw this number approximately a year ago, but there is another one that predicts the number of ATMs installed to be 3.5million by the 2017: https://www.atmia.com/clientuploads/b_newsletters/apr13/withdrawals.html

Let's say that we have 3 million ATMs, half of which is switched off for any reason (malfunction/whatever), so let it be 1.5 million.
I would not make a mistake if I assume that each ATM draws at least 100W from the wall while it just waits for the customer (but I suspect it is more than 100W), so 1.5 million  ATMs consume 150.000 kWh. This is not including expenses to maintain the rest of the infrastructure. Who does pay these expenses? You. The cost is hidden in the prices for goods and services: every merchant pays fees to the service provider, who in turn pays fees to the network.
Don't tell me that the number of transactions the Visa/MC/e.t.c. network process times bigger than the bitcoin network handling to the moment. The hashing power that maintains bitcoin network security does not depend on the number of transactions included into the blocks.

Using bitcoin and not contributing a single cent to its network security you may send a transaction with zero fees if the time to process is not important and it will be processed sooner or later. For tiny 0.0005BTC you get your transaction processed reasonable fast (anyway faster than SWIFT transfer)

Who pays for this? Geeks, enthusiasts of different kind, investors who believe the potential of the Bitcoin.


more like 300W+/ATM

All the ATMs use very old hardware (5+ years). As windows XP became EOL, there was some publicity about this but afaik ms extended the support for clients operating atms.


I intentionally took the lower numbers.
hero member
Activity: 886
Merit: 1013
October 02, 2014, 03:41:12 AM
#58
Is there a chart which shows estimated transaction cost in kWh?
How much bitcoin network at all (miners, nodes, lite clients) takes energy for transaction proceeding?

My calculations are too weak:
Current bitcoin difficulty hashrate is 250 000 000 GH/s
Modern asic miners do 1000 GH/s for 600 W
So, the whole network runs as 250 000 such devices
(In fact the current miners take more energy)
In an hour bitcoin network takes 150 000 kWh power and produces 3000 transactions
So, one transaction costs today at least 50 kWh (this is low estimate)

Are there more correct estimations and time-graph?
Thank you. Sorry, English is not my native language.


According to the ATM Industry Association there are about 3 million ATMs installed worldwide. Unfortunately I can't find the article at their site where I saw this number approximately a year ago, but there is another one that predicts the number of ATMs installed to be 3.5million by the 2017: https://www.atmia.com/clientuploads/b_newsletters/apr13/withdrawals.html

Let's say that we have 3 million ATMs, half of which is switched off for any reason (malfunction/whatever), so let it be 1.5 million.
I would not make a mistake if I assume that each ATM draws at least 100W from the wall while it just waits for the customer (but I suspect it is more than 100W), so 1.5 million  ATMs consume 150.000 kWh. This is not including expenses to maintain the rest of the infrastructure. Who does pay these expenses? You. The cost is hidden in the prices for goods and services: every merchant pays fees to the service provider, who in turn pays fees to the network.
Don't tell me that the number of transactions the Visa/MC/e.t.c. network process times bigger than the bitcoin network handling to the moment. The hashing power that maintains bitcoin network security does not depend on the number of transactions included into the blocks.

Using bitcoin and not contributing a single cent to its network security you may send a transaction with zero fees if the time to process is not important and it will be processed sooner or later. For tiny 0.0005BTC you get your transaction processed reasonable fast (anyway faster than SWIFT transfer)

Who pays for this? Geeks, enthusiasts of different kind, investors who believe the potential of the Bitcoin.


more like 300W+/ATM

All the ATMs use very old hardware (5+ years). As windows XP became EOL, there was some publicity about this but afaik ms extended the support for clients operating atms.
hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 523
October 02, 2014, 03:05:03 AM
#57
Is there a chart which shows estimated transaction cost in kWh?
How much bitcoin network at all (miners, nodes, lite clients) takes energy for transaction proceeding?

My calculations are too weak:
Current bitcoin difficulty hashrate is 250 000 000 GH/s
Modern asic miners do 1000 GH/s for 600 W
So, the whole network runs as 250 000 such devices
(In fact the current miners take more energy)
In an hour bitcoin network takes 150 000 kWh power and produces 3000 transactions
So, one transaction costs today at least 50 kWh (this is low estimate)

Are there more correct estimations and time-graph?
Thank you. Sorry, English is not my native language.


According to the ATM Industry Association there are about 3 million ATMs installed worldwide. Unfortunately I can't find the article at their site where I saw this number approximately a year ago, but there is another one that predicts the number of ATMs installed to be 3.5million by the 2017: https://www.atmia.com/clientuploads/b_newsletters/apr13/withdrawals.html

Let's say that we have 3 million ATMs, half of which is switched off for any reason (malfunction/whatever), so let it be 1.5 million.
I would not make a mistake if I assume that each ATM draws at least 100W from the wall while it just waits for the customer (but I suspect it is more than 100W), so 1.5 million  ATMs consume 150.000 kWh. This is not including expenses to maintain the rest of the infrastructure. Who does pay these expenses? You. The cost is hidden in the prices for goods and services: every merchant pays fees to the service provider, who in turn pays fees to the network.
Don't tell me that the number of transactions the Visa/MC/e.t.c. network process times bigger than the bitcoin network handling to the moment. The hashing power that maintains bitcoin network security does not depend on the number of transactions included into the blocks.

Using bitcoin and not contributing a single cent to its network security you may send a transaction with zero fees if the time to process is not important and it will be processed sooner or later. For tiny 0.0005BTC you get your transaction processed reasonable fast (anyway faster than SWIFT transfer)

Who pays for this? Geeks, enthusiasts of different kind, investors who believe the potential of the Bitcoin.
sr. member
Activity: 268
Merit: 256
October 02, 2014, 02:18:08 AM
#56
@amaclin

I completely understand your thesis, and I have carried this view for some time.

You might receive a better reception on the "Economics" board.

At least part of the problem is that ASICs themselves were sold as part of a "ponzi" scheme,
hence anyone buying a miner was donating future mining profits to the hardware companies.

The best outcome is for mining to once again become a retail activity hence only the marginal
cost between fossil fuel heating and electrical heating gets added to the cost of transactions.

Until something changes, the flow of bitcoin from the miners has to balance the increase in the
rate of transactions. Changes to that, of course, will move the price of bitcoin up or down.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
October 02, 2014, 01:31:27 AM
#55
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have time to try to convince you, sorry.
legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
October 01, 2014, 07:05:05 PM
#54
This is yours democracy. Not mine.
If you think that the price is too high - why do you elect these people to your government?

Somewhat dismayed that some have fallen for the original poster's shallow tactic of replacing one lost argument for one of a completely different construction.
hero member
Activity: 803
Merit: 500
October 01, 2014, 06:05:07 PM
#53
Who pays?

Holder
Miner who mine with loss
People who bought shares of mining companies

You are right, the hashrate has gone far to far. There is no alternative that this bad constellation will have no good end for the miners. They think the more the hashrate grows the higher the price will be, but currently the opposite matches. Maybe you look for more sustainable cryptocurrencies.
 
But on the other side mining has been not profitable for a long time. So miners have always paid the bill in expectation of a future rise of the price. The new thing is that they have to buy asics first to do this.
legendary
Activity: 4424
Merit: 4794
October 01, 2014, 04:19:36 PM
#52
amaclin is missing the whole point of bitcoin
amaclin is missing the whole point of economy
amaclin is missing the whole point of deflation
amaclin is missing the whole point of many things

and thus, im bored.. moving on. you cant teach some. all you can do is leave them to figure it out for themselves
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
October 01, 2014, 04:10:37 PM
#51
Quote
Great!
But these articles were written in July. Bitcoin hashrate doubles since.
I think we should double the numbers in "bitcoin" rows, shouldn't we?
hero member
Activity: 743
Merit: 500
October 01, 2014, 03:55:56 PM
#50
If you missed these articles
http://www.coindesk.com/author/hass-mccook/
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
October 01, 2014, 03:48:13 PM
#49
Quote
Do you own yourself and the effects of your labor?
As far as I can fight for them with the somebody who has another point of view

Quote
Do you believe in the Non - Aggression principle?
Please, give me more concretic. Does the wolf something wrong when it catches and eats the rabbit?
Is non-aggression involves also against eating of tomatoes?

Quote
Why is theft wrong for an individual but right when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
It depends on consensuns rules. In our countries societes the consensuns is that thefts are doing "wrong"
And there are no such things as "thefts", "stealing", "punishment" in bitcoin community/protocol

Quote
Why is murder wrong for an individual but acceptable when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Because the majority is always right. It can not be wrong.

Quote
Why is kidnapping wrong for an individual but just when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Same answer

Quote
Why is torture wrong for an individual but needed when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Same

Quote
Is it possible for governments to exist without centralized monopolies on the use of violence?
It depends of the majority opinion.


Yes, bitcoin does have ethical and political implications. Yes, with the above set of inconsistent and relativistic morals you should fear and hate bitcoin.

You have a disturbing system of morality and it is no wonder why you hate and attack bitcoin. I don't wish harm upon you, but hope you will reconsider
why you believe it moral and just to kill, torture, kidnap, and steal when its a group effort. To me those actions are immoral for an individual or group.
Goodbye.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
October 01, 2014, 03:40:00 PM
#48
Quote
Do you own yourself and the effects of your labor?
As far as I can fight for them with the somebody who has another point of view

Quote
Do you believe in the Non - Aggression principle?
Please, give me more concretic. Does the wolf something wrong when it catches and eats the rabbit?
Is non-aggression involves also against eating of tomatoes?

Quote
Why is theft wrong for an individual but right when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
It depends on consensuns rules. In our countries societes the consensuns is that thefts are doing "wrong"
And there are no such things as "thefts", "stealing", "punishment" in bitcoin community/protocol

Quote
Why is murder wrong for an individual but acceptable when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Because the majority is always right. It can not be wrong.

Quote
Why is kidnapping wrong for an individual but just when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Same answer

Quote
Why is torture wrong for an individual but needed when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Same

Quote
Is it possible for governments to exist without centralized monopolies on the use of violence?
It depends of the majority opinion. I think, it is possible. But I can not give you good example. May be I am wrong.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 501
October 01, 2014, 03:11:05 PM
#47
Quote
I don't vote for politicians, that would be a waste of time and be undignified. I vote by doing actions directly whether it be charity, building something or using bitcoin.
But the other people vote for them? So they think that everything is quite OK?
How can I check - where is the truth? On your side or on their side?

You can find the truth by investigating epistemology, philosophy and critical reasoning.

Here are some questions to ponder while you discover these answers for yourself:

Do you own yourself and the effects of your labor?
Do you believe in the Non - Aggression principle?
Why is theft wrong for an individual but right when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Why is murder wrong for an individual but acceptable when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Why is kidnapping wrong for an individual but just when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Why is torture wrong for an individual but needed when a state government is involved(or group of people)?
Is it possible for governments to exist without centralized monopolies on the use of violence?
Pages:
Jump to: