Martin SeegerApr 17, 2024

If you do 12 Bitcoin transactions per year, you use a higher amount of energy than we use for a complete family (including: heating, warm water, electricity, car charging) in the same year. We do all via electricity.

From: @tkinias
https://historians.social/@tkinias/112283441665687815

Thanasis Kinias (@[email protected])

I just read that a single Bitcoin transaction requires upwards of 1,000 kW-hr of electricity. That’s like running a small air conditioner 24/7 for a month and a half. Edit: This got way more attention than I expected from an offhand remark; I guess it hit a nerve on here! But I’m going to have to mute this, as it’s taken over my notifications...

Mastodon
Show threadGoblinApr 17, 2024

@masek @tkinias That sounded so ridiculous I did a quick websearch to check the numbers and it checks out. I found values between 800 and 1800 kwh.

How the f*** is this s*** still around??? 🤯

Show threadMeltingPenguins 🍉🤠Apr 17, 2024
@goblin @masek @tkinias Because it makes rich people (especially in the graphiccard manufactoring and energy provider sector) richer
Show threadBoltApr 17, 2024

@meltingpenguins @goblin @masek @[email protected] graphics cards actually aren't often used anymore, due to them being unprofitable. They use dedicated mining rigs designed just to mine BTC.

The main reason they still use the wasteful "Proof of Work" (PoW) mechanism is because Bitcoin 'maximalists' don't like change, and refuse to adapt. It's gotten pretty cultish.

Every other major cryptocurrency uses a mechanism called "Proof of Stake" (PoS) which uses ~99.98% less power. BTC miners refuse to switch.

Show threadbojkotiMalbonaApr 17, 2024

@boltx @meltingpenguins @goblin @masek @tkinias To be clear, the problem is not wholly PoW, but specifically *old* PoW tech. From a scientific study¹:

“We illustrate that these kinds of blockchain technology already consume several orders of magnitude less energy than the first generation PoW blockchains and that these blockchains, thus, largely mitigate the energy problem.”

① https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-020-00656-x

The Energy Consumption of Blockchain Technology: Beyond Myth - Business & Information Systems Engineering

When talking about blockchain technology in academia, business, and society, frequently generalizations are still heared about its – supposedly inherent – enormous energy consumption. This perception inevitably raises concerns about the further adoption of blockchain technology, a fact that inhibits rapid uptake of what is widely considered to be a groundbreaking and disruptive innovation. However, blockchain technology is far from homogeneous, meaning that blanket statements about its energy consumption should be reviewed with care. The article is meant to bring clarity to the topic in a holistic fashion, looking beyond claims regarding the energy consumption of Bitcoin, which have, so far, dominated the discussion.

SpringerLink
Show threadBoltApr 17, 2024

@bojkotiMalbona @meltingpenguins @goblin @masek @[email protected] While the paper is certainly interesting, I don't think it's quite a good defense of new PoW chains.

As much as new PoW mechanisms might decrease energy use compared to Bitcoin's traditional PoW mechanics, a lot of that can be chalked up to them simply having less fee revenue, and thus less incentive to run more miners.

The graph in the paper should be Fee Revenue vs Energy, not Market Cap.

Show threadBoltApr 17, 2024
@bojkotiMalbona @meltingpenguins @goblin @masek @[email protected]
And on top of that, look at Ethereum. Sure, these new PoW chains might be more efficient than Bitcoin, but when Ethereum is over 99.9% more energy efficient, can those minor efficiency improvements for new PoW chains really compete?
Show threadbojkotiMalbonaApr 17, 2024

@boltx The paper concluded a difference of a few orders of magnitude, which would not be minor. The new PoW algos would not be able to compete with PoS on energy, but PoS cannot compete on other factors like balance of power and requires a bit more trust iirc. So on a PoS chain, wouldn’t you have people hoarding large amounts of coins and just sitting on them? That seems to drive the currency to be used as an investment when really we want it to be treated like a currency.

They both have their place and the extent of PoW energy demand is always way overblown. It’s not a significant climate factor.

OTOH, banks invest in fossil fuels with reckless disregard. The #WarOnCrypto and #WarOnCash together culminate into Bill Gates’ wet dream: forced banking, which IMO would be the greatest dystopia. We may not be able to stop the elimination of cash but should cling to PoS and PoW to the extent needed to avoid forced banking.

Show threadBoltApr 17, 2024
@bojkotiMalbona Based on my understanding of PoS networks, (assuming they have implemented Slashing mechanisms) PoS is actually more competitive on the capital efficiency, security, distribution, and power balance scales. If a bad actor has billions of dollars, but acts maliciously, every honest node will not follow their chain, and will follow the one where the honest minority slashes them. In PoW, you have no way to take away the attacker's machines.
Show threadBoltApr 17, 2024
@bojkotiMalbona As for the hoarding aspect, that's why automatic rate adjustments happen. For instance, Ethereum's staking rate continually declines as more ETH is staked, so eventually it makes more sense to use ETH as money, than it does to earn a fraction of a percent risk-free interest. There's always a limit, naturally hit through supply and demand.
Show threadBolt

@bojkotiMalbona PoW energy use is definitely overblown a lot, but it's still significant, especially when considering the scale PoW chains like Bitcoin aspire to have in the future.

Good point on banks funding fossil fuels though. They definitely do exacerbate the crisis.

Apr 17, 2024 at 11:10pmWeb