that calculation is at 2015/2016 calculations. (motherboard.vice article wrote march 2016 using data from before that date)

here is an update using hashrate of this week

today's hashrate converts to at most 200,000 S9 ASICS (<2.6m Thash)

at 1.3kwh per asic =260000kwh (260mw)

asia's 5cent electric = $13,000 an hour
USA's 10cent electric = $26,000 an hour
UK's 20cent electric= $52,000 an hour

asia's 5cent electric = $312,000 a day
USA's 10cent electric = $624,000 a day
UK's 20cent electric= $1,248,000 a day

asia's 5cent electric = $113,880,000 a year
USA's 10cent electric = $227,760,000 a year
UK's 20cent electric= $455,520,000 a year

enjoy

by the way UK miners are rare.. so world combined electric cost per year is between $113m-$227m
much less than last years estimate

first you can get total balance of the address here
https://blockchain.info/q/addressbalance/<insert address>
this will give you balance in satoshis.

so divide it by 100,000,000 to get how many bitcoin you have

and then you can get the dollar price of a whole bitcoin
https://blockchain.info/q/24hrprice

and do the math to get dollar value of balance

balance * price

then you do the math of your target

(100 / target) * dollar balance

and then use any common website progress bar code for the code that the front end (user) will see

blockchains have been around alot longer then people think. but how satoshi utilised it made it innovative.

kind of like wheels have been around thousands of years. but how the first combustion engine maker utilised it made vehicles revolutionary(as the wheels and round turning cogs/gears concept inside engine)

so although (when you peal off all the add-on features satoshi patched together PoW, hashing, transaction cryptography, etc..) the blockchain concept is very simple and not revolutionary (data linked to other data(blocks of data chained to other blocks)).. blockchain does open up a new direction of possibilities.

so is blockchain innovation yes
so is blockchain revolutionary no

so is bitcoin innovation yes
so is bitcoin revolutionary yes

median.. hell no..

for instance if it was median. 4 out of 10 would be fut off and not syncing.

what it would be is as it already is.. is the common least denominator
meaning using your numbers it would stick to 1.. (like today we already have a few nodes at 2->16

but imagine people slightly adjusted numbers as time went on
EG
1.2       2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6
pools will now make blocks at 1.2
then
EG
1.5       2        1.5        5        17        3        6        8        1.5        1.6
pools will now make blocks at 1.5
then
EG
1.7       2        1.7        5        17        3        6        8        1.7        1.7
and each time.. EVERYONE is happy


or for instance if there were more results than just 10 (eg over 5000)
1.2       2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6
1          2        1.2        5        17        3        6        8        1.3        1.6

where 95% wanted 1.2 min but there was 5% holding back at 1.
then pools would weigh up the need for more buffer vs orphan risk (5% lagger) and then decide to push on for more and leave the lagger behind having to tweak their setting up to be part of the network or left unsyncing (standard 95% consensus even core/blockstream think is acceptable)


the benefits of segwit are exaggerated. the most foolish thing is letting someone make a TX with 20,000sigops. and then cry that tx's using many sigops take longer to process.. logical solution is restrict sigops so that bloated tx's dont take up too much blockspace, dont use as many sigops, which also cuts down on processing time.

many have tried rebuttling me, but just used insults and not logic, not stats, not real life scenarios.
but yes. dont take anyones info on face value and run your own scenarios.

the short gist of blocksizes is that with dynamic blocks (node users set the blocksize buffer setting themselves) anything under that setting is acceptable. EG some people already have theirs set at 2mb, 4mb and up. and they are running on the network accepting (1mb)blocks now. perfectly fine.. no issues

using consensus (feature in bitcoin) if the majority flagged a certain level. then pools would flag a level they are happy with too and it grows only at a rate the majority are happy with.
so the rational minded people know it wont jump to gigabytes over night but natural pace that nodes can cope with.

after all if they cant cope, they wont flag desire for it. and any increase wont activate, due to consensus not being reached

only issue is core are withholding an implimentation of that sort of feature to allow users to self adjust. thus we are stuck at 1mb until those running core are spoonfed whatever core devs want to give their users.

so take the blocksize doomsday rhetorics with a large pinch of salt, it just core devs (blockstream paid + lots of unpaid interns) holding things back, because they prfer pushing users into centralist contracts where they can make money charging fee's and revoking payments

what if i told you that using dynamic rules AND consensus.. nodes only flag desire to increase when they can handle it. and it only increases if the majority can handle it. they all set their own max buffer flag, and blocksizes of larger amounts only grow to the scale the majority can happily cope with.

meaning it will not surpass what people can cope with, because if larger sizes cant be coped with by nodes they wont flag desire for..

we dont need devs to spoonfeed what they feel/they desire, when the network itself can do it.

devs have already said 8mb is safe but they prefer their 4mb weight. (compared to their old fake doomsday rhetoric of 2mb was bad)
so there is no reason to keep the baseblock at 1mb

if you are antpool/bitmain/bitfury etc.. the cost is zero.. thanks to their retail sales of asics..
well kinda

at most its just the electric price which is ~$225 per 13thash asic for 6months. but this can also be offset thanks to their retail sales too

this is because the retail price they sell their ASICS to others is 4-5x the cost of manufacturing an ASIC.
so for every asic sold antpool can keep 3-4 asics themselves or have 1 asic themselves and spare funds for electric, wages and shelter lease.

but if you are in the west having to buy an asic and pay the electric

first its $2100 for 13thash asic, (pre christmas it was just $1600/asic)
then the electric, shelter lease, salary and the PSU needs to be added

but first the electric
if you are in the US its ~$450 for 6 months electric per asic (totalling ~$2700 all included for 6 month running time or ~$3100 for a year)
if you are in the UK its ~$900 for 6 months electric per asic (totalling ~$3100 all included for 6 month running time or ~$3500 for a year)


some maths was done before christmas that calculated it would take 1 asic 6 months to get 1btc. so if asic manufacturers were to pay electric(~$225(add a bit more for wage/shelter leasing)), then $300 sounds right. thanks to the freebie asic they get due to their retail business

but.. here is the but..  the hashrate competition and the difficulty has changed since then. antpool alone opened a new facility and their hashrate has jumped considerably, as has the network difficulty.

the network difficulty has jumped ~29% since previous calculations of predicted 6month for 1btc/asic..
the network hashrate has jumped ~30% since previous calculations of predicted 6month for 1btc/asic..

factoring in other things. like knowing hashrate/difficulty changes, at 6 months now only gets you 0.89btc and takes a further 2 and a half months to get 1btc

and yes i done calculations that step down the income per fortnight dependant on difficulty/hashrate competition variation.
where those fortnightly stepping down income, really affect income as time passes.

summary
for asic manufacturers its between 0-$400/btc if including electric leases etc (compared to prechristmas $300)
for asic consumers its between $2900(US)-$3500(uk) (compared to prechristmas $2100(US)-$2600(uk))

based on the million tx's (mine stopped at 1,048,575 results)

average tx confirmed in 40mins 30mins
average tx size 458bytes
average tx fee 36892sat-41750sat      (depending on if you include or exclude the 0fee tx's in the average)

average fee per byte is 91sat/byte
max fee per byte of range 34883 sat/byte
min fee per byte of range 0
-- as for the max fee.. either the source data has an error or someone lastweek paid ALOT for one of their transaction

max tx size 98888 bytes (98.9KB)
min tx size 170 bytes
-- as for the max bytes..either the source data has an error or someone lastweek had a near 99kb tx(filling 10% of block with 1tx)

when 12 paid blockstream centralist devs hand out scripts to their 90 interns who desire to impress the paid guys in the hopes the interns get a job by showing loyalty. and each of them start going out and repeating the "blocksize rise is doomsday" rhetoric..
many people believe, not because its true but because they are hearing the same story from 100 different people. so they dont even bother to individually investigate, research or run scenarios. but accept the spoonfed info on face value due to "trust". afterall their mindset is '100 people cant be wrong'..

mark twain: " a lie can travel around the world, while the truth is putting on its shoes"

you can usually spot the scripts. when they throw out words like "we are conservative" or "go fork your altcoin" to anyone thats not core friendly
its like blockstream are taking a lesson from mass media
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZVv2AOCnaA
https://youtu.be/jH8dejYGa5A?t=36s

funny part is, this rhetoric thats passed around lacks stats or real life data.
but people will sheep follow just out of trust that if 10 people say the same thing, even if there are no stats to back it up. it must be true

they even went out of their way to say that although satoshi said 32mb is ok.. the chinese firewall has issues far below 32mb.
the problem with that theory is that, the chinese firewall does not have issues. infact chinese pools have stratum servers outside the firewall that hold the actual block data and only need to send a small hash (few bytes) to ASIC farms.. thus ASIC farms inside china are not even handling the real blockchain data anyway(no ASIC has a hard drive). thus killing off the chinese firewall theory/doomsday rhetoric..

yep the 8mb number is to do with the chinese firewall. but the chinese pools have mitigated that risk. though for now the community are only seeking 2mb-4mb so we can delve deeper into the 8mb theory at a later date.

but all in all the community think baby steps is safe. which we all agree.. even as far back as 2015 we all thought we settled our differences and agreed that 2mb was fine. but.. its the blockstream centralists and their sheep that are the ones throwing out the gigabyte blocks by midnight doomsday, not anyone else (with atleast half a brain)

learn enough about BTC and then you can become the lecturer.
you can make a nice income. but worth doing a few small seminars for free to get your name known locally first.. its how andreas antanopolis started off and now he is making a career out of it, fully funded by bitcoin.. paid for by conference ticket purchases (thus even organising events is no big cost to get lecturers in)

6 months? based on?... oh wait the theory that bitcoin will have 7 billion users by midnight tonight. (blockstream centralists doomsday distractions)

also core themselves now deem 8mb safe but prefer 4mb in mid 2016 wait to stay below safe.. but while they stifle legacy transactions by halting them at 1mb.. the rest of the community see that the communities compromise of 2mb last year should have been allowed all along now that blockstream backtracked.

if we went with your 6month growth imaginary target, lets throw that into a scenario:

so imagine 2mb happened mid 2017.
we can go to 3mb start of 2018.
4mb mid 2018....
and re-evaluate the 'safety' of 5mb, 6mb, 7mb. 8mb.. which would be 2 years after core admit 8mb ok but 4mb super safe.

funny thing is:
millions of people UPLOAD livestreams without issue. requiring 750kbit/s upload.
=93.75kbyte/s   =56250kbyte/10mins   = 56mbyte every 10 minutes

even satoshi himself knew this in 2009 but went with a 32mb hidden ultimate limit concerning the max data / 'messages' bitcoin would transmit, to avoid packet loss.
but later in 2009 added 1mb rule. not due to bandwidth and not due to bloat.. but due to spam tx mitigation

yep bitcoin can handle more. but core want to limit tx count purely to limit tx count.. nothing more

funny thing is:
even bottomline computing that could handle bitcoin in 2009-2016 = Raspberry Pi1
but things have moved on since 2009
raspberry Pi3  and also bitcoins own efficiency tweaks (libsecp256k1, etc) make current bottom line tech able to handle 25x legacy(old) data specs..

as for the storage of data.. do i need to paste in the fingernail size of the last 8 years of bitcoin data (128gb microsd) and do i need to paste in a hard drive thats under $100 that can store much much much much more

better to word it in the same mindset the blockstream centralists try calling anything else not a core implementation an alt

1. its not bitcoincore, its LND, so it must be an altcoin - use their own stupid and failed rebuttles against them

but then use rational reasons

1. N stands for network, meaning its a separate network
2. it just has "copies" of bitcoin transactions.. but is not sitting in a bitcoin implementations mempool or blockchain.. it later copies and pastes their separate network data back to bitcoin days/weeks later. meaning bitcoin 'compatible' not directly part of bitcoin itself
3. its not a pure bitcoin compatible separate network. they are hinting to add another prefix to multisigs from just '3' to being 'btc:' to later add other alts to be compatible.. hint LTC is going to be a sidechain. (they are already prepping LTC with their segwit tests, im guessing gmaxwells monero will be there too)

agreed to both statements.. but my messages usually point at one person but the context is usually aimed at helping a broader audience learn something at the same time. if i wanted to reply to only the person i quote in, id do it in PM

also to note. i can sense a rebuttle by the centralists that love LN will pretend LN is not centralist because of the hop ability
eg
if thre were 4 separate channels..
A<->B
B<->C
C<->D
D<->E

but A decided to pay E one day, centralists will hide their end goal by saying a pays b who pays c who pays d who pays e

the issue is that B will refuse to pay C with A's funds because it costs B a 'small fee' to pay C
the issue is that C will refuse to pay D with A's funds because it costs C a 'small fee' to pay D
the issue is that D will refuse to pay E with A's funds because it costs D a 'small fee' to pay E

in short for A to pay E.. A has to pay 4x the LN fee to cover B,C and D's costs.
but if A only wants to buy things from B.. A only pas 1x fee

which is what the centralists want. to commercialise it where someone in the middle gets paid to manage swaps.
which they know will end up as a star network

A<->C
B<->C
D<->C
E<->C

where it saves on hops because everything now loops through C so now A paying E only costs 2x..
but if A only wants to buy things from C.. A only pas 1x fee

but now C earns a tx fee from everyone
this is the HUB manager the centralists love so much... also known as paypal2.0 that blockstream want to be to repay their investors

edit
thanks sportis for showing blockstream centralist Rusty Russel (main LN dev) admitting the Hub requirement


also to add... check out the neon red flat words in the github to see all the signs
"hypershachains", where the hub owns all the seeds to revoke codes...... seriously, getting very centralistic there blockstream! cant deny it now
"funding manager"
"servers"

here is a great idea for LN devs.. only let CSV revoked funds go back to the origin.. meaning back into the LN multisig to open a new channel... never to be used to divert funds into a second persons personal address as a 'punishment'

that way it cant be abused by scammers to rip people off.. but instead funds go back into contracts to get a new mutual agreement again

those wishing to increase the blocksize are not suggesting ridiculous sizes
infact if a node cant handle it they wont flag desire for it. meaning it wont activate consensus for it.. thus it will only grow at a natural acceptable rate. so eat that logic bomb, its a feature built into bitcoin.. its called consensus

its also LN hubs that become paypal2.0 where customers have to get the hub manager to sign off on funds locked in with the hub manager.
EG walmart will be paypal2.0, starbucks will be paypal2.0. need i remind you that these hubs will impose >48hour 'funds unavailable' maturity locks even after confirm.. (CLTV: like how block rewards are locked for 100 confirms.. like banks hold funds for 3-5 days) need i remind you that while waiting in maturity funds can be revoked (csv: like bank and paypal chargebacks)

might be worth you doing your research.

wake up to the truth and not the distracting reverse psychology scripts you read and repeat without open minded and critical thought.
everything negative which blockstream try pointing at a different direction, are actually actions they do themselves

so

no history = not a blockchain
no consensus = no independent auditing

in short and simple terms its just a open google spreadsheet of balances anyone can view and download....

now lets address the lies and lack of understanding the OP has.

1. a bitcoin ASIC miner does not have a hard drive, meaning an ASIC is not hurt by the bloat of the blockchain or amount of transactions.
a POOL stores the blockchain and hands a HASH to the ASIC's.
it does not matter how many transactions are on a block, ASICS dont see or get hurt by the bloat of transactions.
in short bitcoin miners are unaffected by data bloat.

2. bitcoins 8 years of tx data can fit on a fingernail


overall this statement from fastercoin sums up the backward thinking

all i can see is some dude asking you to hand him your real bitcoin and then you can play around with his google spreadsheet balance. (no difference than MTGox balance or facebook credits). all while not even understanding how things actually work and while also throwing out FUD/scare stories that hold no merit..

seems unrevolutionary and very backward thinking.. boring.

.. sorry if im just being frank

name one that can be used at 300,000+ merchants.

as for altcoins.. right now they are crapcoins. otherwise they would have already 'taken over'
that said e should not cripple/halt bitcoins utility purely to give a crap coin an advantage.

(EG G maxwell loves his monero but hates bitcoin, he cant wait for monero or the bankers hyperledger take the lead)

im not saying in the future an altcoin may offer something better.. but we should not cripple bitcoins mainnet to win that future altcoin some fame

---

strange thing is that people want to cripple and halt bitcoins growth and remove its utility to directly be spent with 300,000+ merchants. purely to let a permissioned network (LN) or an altcoin(buzzword: sidechain) take over.

all because of false fearful doomsdays that bitcoin needs to be 5000 miles away tomorrow, where forcing it to run now will kill bitcoin. so lets not even let bitcoin walk one step.

bitcoin can get to its destination one step at a time.. dont doomsday the running at lightspeed rhetoric by midnight as an excuse to stop it from walking and growing everyday.

if you buy bitcoin with euros and withdraw to address A
you move a->b
you move b->c
you move c->d
you move d->e

you can say that B was you buying something and B is a totally different person. meaning C, D and E should be left alone and not looked into.
meaning you think your safe at point C->

but if they see E was later linked to you depositing funds into an exchange or you bought something privately that linked to your home address. then all of a sudden A,B,C,D,E are all linked to you and any movements of any funds in the future related any way to ABCDE has some relation to you.

this is why people say only use an address once
for example
dont continually use C and D thinking only A and E are linked to your real life info

you move a->b
you move b->c
you move c->d     x->d  d->f
you move d->e

not only would they consider F is now linked to you too, they would also wonder who X was and why X paid you, and then check backwards at where X got their funds to pay you

OP post and linked article is another FUD topic made to scare people.

what the actual EU stuff concerns is EU FIAT handling exchanges.. <-read 3 times, have a coffee, read three times again until it sinks in

Euro handling exchanges, which need to be regulated anyway, need to follow regulations(logic.. touch their money follow their rules).

this is the same for any money business.

it is not something about european bitcoin users(that dont handle fiat for business use).
it is not something about european developers making fullnodes
it is not something about european developers making non fiat touching webwallets.

it is about EXCHANGES.


coin idol did not factually talk much about the EU statement and instead made a article where they just talk to other bitcoiners about their opinions.