Soon BTC will be ecological!

[rupy]

When ASIC replaces GPU.

This is really something to celebrate!!!

[Akka]

So ASICs run on love and fresh air!

Amazing.

[cedivad]

When ASIC replaces GPU.

This is really something to celebrate!!!

No, standing to my view recurring fees (electricity) will soon become the main cost of mining.

This dosent mean that ordering from BFL is smart.

[rupy]

You mean ratio hardware/electricity cost? IE hardware will become cheaper?

[cedivad]

You mean ratio hardware/electricity cost? IE hardware will become cheaper?

Yes, absolutely. (only if 2, 3 vendors come up and don't do any trust)

[SgtSpike]

When ASIC replaces GPU.

This is really something to celebrate!!!

Except we'll eventually be using the same amount of electricity anyway.

[rupy]

Ok, say GPU topped out at 25TH.

Best MH/J:
  GPU = 3
  FPGA = 25
  ASIC = 170 (Avalon)

So total energy for 25TH:
  GPU = 8.3MJ = 29GWh
  FPGA = 1MJ = 3.6GWh
  ASIC = 140KJ = 0.5MWh

Average nuclear reactor 1GW?!

So hashrate at 29GWh for ASIC:

   1.45 EH/s that's 58000 times GPU!

Was this right?

[SgtSpike]

Ok, say GPU topped out at 25TH.

Best MH/J:
  GPU = 3
  FPGA = 25
  ASIC = 170

So total energy for 25TH:
  GPU = 8.3MJ = 29GWh
  FPGA = 1MJ = 3.6GWh
  ASIC = 140KJ = 504KWh

Average nuclear reactor 1GW?!

So hashrate at 29GWh for ASIC:

   1.4 EH/s that's 57539 times GPU!

Was this right?

I didn't check your calculations, but the bottom line is that mining electrical costs will ALWAYS tend towards the point of revenue.  If we're using 8.3MJ of electricity right now, we'll eventually be using 8.3MJ of electricity with ASICs, so long as the BTC price remains the same.  If the BTC price moves, then revenue will move as well (and electric costs will catch up after some period of time).

[Luno]

It's not Hashes/Joule that is the limitting factor!

It's Bitcoin/Joules, which approaches  1.3 as it did with GPU and CPU mining when you factor in the corrective effect Difficulty raise has.

Given enough time (one year?) Costs and pollution will be exactly the same as before, and a 60 GHs ASIC will cost $400 if 60 GHs becomes the new standard for an entry miner as 1.5 GHs was amongst GPU miners.

The only thing thats is better for the environment is that they are ordered directly from factory, no middlemen, Neither are there any advertising or salesmen on the payrole.

[rupy]

So do you mean that if price goes up, electricity usage goes up?

That's crazy, if 1000$/BTC we would use 1.45TWh, that's 1450 nuclear reactors!?

Also to reach 8.3MJ we have 88.500 graphic cards minimum.

And for ASIC at 29GWh we need 21.000.000.000 Avalons. There's not enough silicone on the earth!

[crazyates]

No, he means it's not all about speed. It's about relative speed.

If everyone is mining at 1.5GH/s, then you're all making the same amount of BTC.

If everyone is mining at 60GH/s, then you're all making the same amount of BTC.

GH/s is just one of several factors that determines your overall profitability. Cost of hardware, power draw, cost of power, uptime, difficulty, and USD/BTC all play very important rolls.

[Jorgeminator]

When ASIC replaces GPU.

This is really something to celebrate!!!

Bitcoin won't be ecological until all miners (except one to keep the network running) bail. Did you realize there's something called difficulty? You could have 20 gigawatts of ASICs producing the same amount of Bitcoins as 5 megawatts of GPUs.

[rupy]

yes, but even if hardware prices drop to 400$ per 66GH/s we're never going to use 29GWh... so bitcoin will be *more* ecological!

[DeathAndTaxes]

Ok, say GPU topped out at 25TH.

Best MH/J:
  GPU = 3
  FPGA = 25
  ASIC = 170 (Avalon)

So total energy for 25TH:
  GPU = 8.3MJ = 29GWh
  FPGA = 1MJ = 3.6GWh
  ASIC = 140KJ = 0.5MWh

Average nuclear reactor 1GW?!

So hashrate at 29GWh for ASIC:

   1.45 EH/s that's 58000 times GPU!

Was this right?

You got some unit conversion issue here.  Pretty obvious from the first state.  If we take the first line as accurate 170 MH/J vs 3 MH/J  (57x) then for same amount of hashing power GPU require ~57x more energy not 58,000 more energy.  

If GPU take 29 GWh (assuming that is correct) the ASICs (a 1/57th the energy) would take ~0.5 GWh (not 0.5 MWh).  

Everything else being equal (total hardware costs, exchange rate, global energy rates, risk, etc) given enough time for the "market" to absorb and react to this change we would expect difficulty to rise by a factor of 57x.  So while the energy per hash will be less it will require more hashes and thus the energy per BLOCK will be roughly the same.  Same energy being spent but now 57x as many hashes are protecting the network.  We saw essentially the same thing in the move from CPU to GPU.

[DeathAndTaxes]

yes, but even if hardware prices drop to 400$ per 66GH/s we're never going to use 29GWh... so bitcoin will be *more* ecological!

Of course we will.  GPS vs ASIC it doesn't really matter.  Hashing power (and thus energy consumption) will continue to rise until margins are essentially break even for miners. 

[rupy]

What about this:

And for ASIC at 29GWh we need 21.000.000.000 Avalons. There's not enough silicone on the earth!

Is that calculation also off by 1000? Do you think we can manufacture 21.000.000 avalons? Or even more if they draw less power!

So what is the calculus for break even energy consumption here?

I'm looking for the environmental equation of bitcoin if you will!

[DeathAndTaxes]

Yes.  I got to run so I don't have time to check that math but lets just look at this logically An Avalon is only 57x more energy efficient then a GPU.  IF x GWh requires 21 million Avalons then it would also require 57x 21 million = ~ 1 billion GPU.  I am pretty sure there aren't a billion GPU being used in mining today.  Right?

[SgtSpike]

What about this:

And for ASIC at 29GWh we need 21.000.000.000 Avalons. There's not enough silicone on the earth!

Is that calculation also off by 1000? Do you think we can manufacture 21.000.000 avalons? Or even more if they draw less power!

So what is the calculus for break even energy consumption here?

I don't know, I see the calculations as being off all over the place.

Here's what I get:

25 TH/s / 400 MH/s / GPU = 62,500 GPU's.
62,500 GPU's x 200 watts = 12,500,000 watts

Which is only 12.5MWh.

12.5MW / 400watts / Avalon = 31,250 Avalons

= 2,125 TH/s.

And yes, it is absolutely possible to manufacture that many Avalon ASICs.

[johnyj]

I think like this:

First year, there are only 7200 miners, they divide 7200BTC per day, average 1 BTC per miner per day

Second year, there are now 14400 miners and they divide 3600 BTC perday, average 0.25BTC per miner per day

But the price increased by 4X and every miner still get the same amount of return in USD's form, the price increase keep the mining operation profitable, since they have to pay the electricity

Now, the ASIC arrived, there are still 14000 miners divide 3600 BTC per day, but some of the miners have upgraded to ASIC, and some of the miners will quit the game, so generally I think the number of miners will decrease and their share of BTC per day will increase （because ASIC supply is much more limited comparing with GPU supply before)

But on the power usage side, if the BTC price rise very high, then the power usage will rise accordingly, so ecological or not, purely depend on the BTC price, if the price is high, then the consumption of energy will be high, it has nothing to do with the technology used for mining

[rupy]

think you have W and Wh confused, but you are right we only need 1/2 of a nuclear plant to power BTC wit GPUs!