Bitcoin Forum

"We demonstrate Bitcoin consumes 56X less energy than the classical system. When Lightning is compared to Instant Payments, Bitcoin gains exponentially in scalability & efficiency, proving to be up to a million times more energy efficient per transaction."

- Source of article, that might helpful to some users to get knowledge too
https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1537440210203553792

I suggest sharing the article where you took this information so people who might be interested in the story can read it in full, and also to prevent your account from getting banned due to plagiarism.

if you actually paid attention high ranking members are giving merits to any ranks that they think to deserve it. what you might consider "best" or "good" might not be the best or good for other members. if you want merit, do better, quoting or sharing a link from an article won't get you one(unless someone found it extremely helpful and decided to give you merit)

The source of his post is this: https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-uses-56-times-less-energy-than-classical-system/ (https://cryptoslate.com/bitcoin-uses-56-times-less-energy-than-classical-system/). I would request OP to Edit his post and add the source of his post to get rid of getting banned.


Almost 90% of newbies have the same thought as yours. Look at my Rank. I am not a hero member or a Legendary. I am a full member and I am getting merits from others. I wouldn't say my post quality is good. But, Try to post something helpful and informative or write something interesting that is worth reading. Don't do Copy-paste, or you will find yourself banned.

most people give merits if someone say something enlightening, a light bulb moment that inspires the community and makes everyone a little bit brighter.something unique and interesting and worthy.

just linking an article well, talking about an article without even linking it is not worthy of merit

also merit is not that important

Posting a quote even without the source is a "good post" now? Lmao.

Also, there's a reason why most high ranks have high ranks in the first place — because most of them deserved the merits.

When someone post a half-ass thread like this, without the source for their information and then complain about "Merit" .... I have to respond.  ::) Have you ever scrutinized the post that are getting "Merit" and learnt from that?

This would have been a "great" post, if you did it properly, because it is a "hot" topic in the community and everyone are waiting for someone to do proper research on the energy usage of Banks vs energy usage of Crypto currencies.

Try again... and do some proper research and discussion... then you might get some "Merit" for it.

Was thinking the same in 2018 when I created my account. As you can see I was wrong and my account is far from having 0 merits. Just continue to create good content it will be here for ever. Some of my posts are getting merits half year after they were created.

People don't have much of them. As franky1 said - post have to be special. if i read like 50 posts a day and I have like 1 merit to give... do not feel offended it wasn't your post.


Source of article is needed in OP. Number are devastating. And yet people will continue to fud that bitcoin will be banned because of carbon footprint while its 56x better than its main competitor. Bitcoin is more eco-friendly than PC gaming -

With banking, the ATMs itself will cost big in energy consumption. At present the available number of the cryptocurrency ATMs in comparison to the traditional banking ATMs were very low in number. A small Bank branch have got atleast 5 to 10 computers. There'll be energy consumption variation, but the organisation that keep on mentioning bitcoin is against the go green process. Even with statistical and real-time data they never believe in it.

I found it! https://twitter.com/lopp/status/1537440210203553792

(there's others but I don't have seen that name before so I'll share there's).

---

I've found research papers that point at its efficiency being higher and I wouldn't doubt that either. Especially if bitcoin's inflation drops and the price stabilises. Computers consume power even if they're idle, if these are used in companies to handle the burden of lighting payments then they'll still consume about the same amount of energy and will be contributing to the network for free (same goes for normal computers that are lighting enabled).

Such posts should be accompanied by the source link, some forum members like to check the source of the content to ensure its authenticity. That being said, btc has been castigated for high energy consumption and bad to the environment severally for a long time but if some new study is out to counter such claims, it will be good for btc and the entire crypto community but unfortunately, I doubt the btc haters would find this new study any relevant.



You should focus more on providing good and quality posts than merit even though i know it is important to help you grow in rank, but once you post something worthy of being merited, am sure you will be merited.

It seems that in this case you are only fixated on merit, not on quality posts.
You need to understand that indeed pasting something but without a clear source and only half of it is not something of a quality friend ;D

From what you just said it actually explains what you mean by creating this thread for. Just because bringing in bitcoins with the paste results without providing a completely valid source and ending with a sentence like this is really not a good thing in my opinion.

Sharing news will generate merits for you, if it does, it will be very little. Try to create your own opinion based on sources and at the end cite them. In my view, this is a way where you learn and still manage to pass your vision and knowledge to several people.

Regarding the topic, even saving energy, the number of bank transactions is several times higher than that of Bitcoin. So this big expense is justifiable.

This thread could have been one of the most active threads on this board but you deviated from the original content of this thread and shifted your attention to merits and how high-rank members share their merits.

All I can say about bitcoin energy consumption is that this topic has become a highly speculative discussion that many members are diving into research as to accertain the true data and what makes up for the bitcoin energy consumption and banks since their both make use of computing system to perform transactions within the system.

I believe the banking sector consumes more energy than Bitcoin due to centralization and public acceptance.

Are you argitating for merits or what? When i started reading your post it sounds interesting not until i come across the second and ending paragraph that just make a spoil to your post, should in case you don't know, Merits in given base on individuals convinctions, touch or impact they got served from your post, you don't beg for it, ask for it, sell or questions anyone for not giving you, you will understand better how to takes to earn a merit and your own turn will soon come, by then we will see how you will display fareness and justice in giving out merit on posts.

What newbies need to understand is that merits in this forum is like money. Everyone needs money, but when they go about the street shouting and begging for money, they would be disregarded and likely no money will come their ways.

But when someone in need of money comes up with a good idea, profer solution to people's problems or offer some services, money will flow in.

That is what happens in the forum, no matter how you directly or indirectly beg for merit, it might not come until you start doing things that are merit-worthy.

Bitcoin is an electronic peer-to-peer payment system, and it's not correct to compare it with the whole banking and fiat money system. As the paper shows, a large portion of energy is spent on maintaining banknotes and coins, and it may seem that Bitcoin is winning here, but it's essentially like asking "what's better - a car or a ship?". The world needs both electronic and physical money, our civilization won't be able to function without physical money, and it's foolish to try to fully get rid of physical money, because it makes society vulnerable to disruptions of electronic payment methods, Internet, energy grid.

Second, the paper shows how banks consume a lot of energy because they employ millions of people, but that's because banks provide services other than simply transferring money, like approving loans, helping people invest and so on - Bitcoin has none of it. Also the human in the loop has features that Bitcoin doesn't have - it can save you from scammers by asking for additional verification, it can help you undo theft or transactions done by mistake, it can recover access to your account if you lost your password and so on. It also comes with negative sides like unjust fund seizures or account freezes, but overall it makes banks very different from Bitcoin, so again it's not correct to say "both systems transfer money, so we compare their total energy use".

If Bitcoin was offering EVERYTHING that banks offer, it would be possible to compare its energy use with full energy use of banks.

Instead of Twitter, you should post the actual source: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4125499

Unfortunately, this topic is already lost with many posts about OP's Merit begging. But the paper is worth discussing. Therefore, I'll take the discussion to [LAUNCHED] Bitcoincleanup.com: a website to stop Greenpeace's bitcoin FUD. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5414147.0)

Right, those bitcoin haters will always say what they want about Bitcoins energy consumption even though this has been proven many times not to be correct when compared to some other sectors' energy consumption of the economy, however, it is still good to continue to put this type of information out there for those dry brains. ;D

I agree with them that banks make a mistake when comparing their services to bitcoin. They only focus on bitcoin's power consumption and compare it to the ATM power consumption, while bank doesn't operate on those alone. They'd have to add every single card terminal in every single store and every data center that connects these. They'd also have to add every computer in every bank branch, every piece of light and CCTV system, every server of online banking and so on. If they use electric heating in their branches they'd have to add it, along with AC, water heaters in bathrooms and many many other little things like security systems.


Why are you so cynical? Are you in some kind of merit competition? When I see someone frustrated about not getting merit I picture them standing in the middle of a street asking people to pat them in the back or hug them. Do you need a hug mate? ;D I'll give you one!

Most countries lack basic amenities that would aid bitcoin adoption and usage, therefore it would take many years for bitcoin to be used in such areas for transactions. Illiteracy is another major reason why physical money would still be around. Fiat is very easy to use for the uneducated. A high percentage of my country's population has never used ATMs and greater number lack internet banking skills. Bitcoin adoption would increase as more countries embrace mass education and technological development. For now, fiat would still be around.


You just gave me a new perspective on why traditional banking services still prevail. Human intellect can not be compared to machines and robots and they still offer a wide range of services that bitcoin lacks. But I am predicting that bitcoin might start offering these services in the nearest future. But the fact that traditional banks consume more energy than bitcoin would always be underplayed by bitcoin haters, while they would always overblow bitcoin's energy consumption. Hence, I am very happy when I see findings like this.  

I don't see how Bitcoin would start offering services other than simple money transfers. DeFi is an attempt to to that, and as we can see it's centralized and unsafe, and it fails to provide any solutions that would be useful for the masses, like loans without a collateral. It's limited to just trading altcoins for altcoins, which is not useful for real world economy.

It's fair to say bitcoin is good but it can't compare to the banking system. We are investors, bitcoiners, but we should not exaggerate bitcoin and fall into the illusion that bitcoin is everything, can replace the banking system or anything else. What we don't like about the bank is that it is too centralized and we don't have full control over our assets when using the bank, but the services it offers are undeniable, in addition to savings, banks lend us with mortgages or with suitable interest rates. When we need money urgently to handle our business, bitcoin or cryptocurrency cannot provide such loans, not even our loved ones are willing to help us. But the bank is a place we can think of as long as we agree to the arrangements they make. We can borrow to decide on work. In my opinion, banking is still necessary in our lives, like it or not.

Yes, it is still necessary. But as you said, because it is centralized, it ends up not giving confidence to its users. In addition to charging high fees in exchange for almost nothing. So, in addition to this precarious financial role, it turns out that they still don't help with society.

Overall, this is great news for bitcoin's long-term sustainability. If cryptocurrencies and digital currencies are going to be successful over the next few decades, then it will require a major reduction in the amount of power currently required to mine and validate every transaction. About how far Bitcoin can be improved from a sustainability perspective and reduce waste and environmental impact, This is one of the implied messages that should be considered future.

I am a bitcoin investor and bitcoin also gives me a lot of things that my main job cannot give me. But I can tell you, bitcoin is not comparable to the banking system. As @hathepsut93 said, it not only provides you with a simple way to transfer money, but also a lot of other services.

Banks have been around for centuries and bitcoin has only been around for 13 years. Before bitcoin arrived, did you rely on banks? I don't believe you don't have any bank account, I don't believe you never use a bank in your life. Bitcoin is amazing and everyone should have some bitcoin if want good future that is my sincere advice, but the bank is also very important to us, we should not get rid of it completely, just don't put all our trust in it.

Bitcoin, being able to both be store of value and also a payment transaction may make it unique on its own. I mean surely there must be "some" out there, but can you tell me something that both gains value and makes you rich and you invest into, but could also use for paying a cup of coffee?

Look at all the other investments we know, bank savings account, gold, real estate, stocks, whatever you can think of, they are not stuff we use to pay for a coffee, or look at things that you can use to spend, dollars, change, credit card, whatever, they are usable to pay for stuff but those are not investments. Bitcoin could be the only thing you can use together.

Increase in the usage of energy on Bitcoin mining keeps decreasing as a result of advanced high efficiency miners. Same time banking industry follow the same old form of banking where we need to pass through a stream of process. To pass these stream of process few intermediary need to work on it. This leads to the increased energy consumption.

In reality they're green and the Bitcoin is mentioned as functioning against the environment. Maybe similar things will make the traditional banking networks think about it and improve their efficiency.

Yes I agree. But, banks still have a large number of transactions per minute, and BTC has a very low number compared to banks.

I think BTC needs more time to evolve its number of transactions, for me this is very important

This statement same like begging merit, but you're lucky got 5 Merits from Legendary members

---

That's why this campaign popup https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5415550.0
to realize people that Bitcoin does not consume as much power as the environmentalists out there are campaigning for

This discussion is a little bit started after some country's governments started to talk about bitcoin because of being proof of work and they believe bitcoin miners will consume too much energy to mine bitcoin and confirming each block of bitcoin takes a lot of energy because most of the bitcoin miners use fossil energy resources while if you compare bitcoin to the banks and the energy required to print traditional money you will understand the energy they use in the old financial and monetary system is much more than mining bitcoin by bitcoin miners.

basically, bitcoin mining consumes quite a bit of energy but compared to the consumption with other industries it is really insignificant, but they always find a way to blame bitcoin and the ethereum merger gives them more reason to put more pressure on bitcoin

i think if all the miners switched to using renewable energy to mine bitcoin, they would still blame and find all sorts of other reasons because those people didn't like bitcoin in the first place. this is controversial and there are still a lot of bitcoin supporters like us so i think it's nothing too serious, bitcoin cannot please everyone

I would guess that it's not really ideal to compare the two together in the sense that transaction amounts are different. It could be different but we are not seeing anyone worrying about banks carbon foot print, whereas we are seeing a ton of people worrying about bitcoins one, that's the problem here.

If we one day reach to a volume that is close to worlds banks all total, then we could worry about the increased energy usage, but we are not there now, and yet people are still worried about it. We should be looking into not just dropping the amount of energy we use, but also we should focus on finding a way to fix the bad ways we find energy, we need to use energy but produce it in a clean way.