Bitcoin already using too much power by 2020?

[Ultrafinery]

Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?

[AGD]

Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?

See what I mean? You can't provide any content to support your statement. You don't know the actual price and energy that is wasted for fiat, though you are stating that Bitcoin mining is "a waste of energy" and definitely higher than fiat. All that yaddayadda about "cost of my laptop" have no relevance for this discussion, because I don't use it only for Bitcoin transactions. How much would it cost for me to send 100000$ USD to China? How much would it cost to send the same amount in Bitcoin? Which transaction would be faster and which would be cheaper? See, Bitcoin has some obvious advantages, which justify a certain amount of energy to be used to secure the system.

[Ultrafinery]

Until there is an alternative to proof-of-work that is proved to be secure enough to power a global, decentralized ledger, it would not be correct to call bitcoin mining useless or wasteful -- unless, of course, you don’t think Bitcoin provides any value to the world.

Transacting via blockchain secured by POW uses too much energy, by design.
The cost of mining 1 BTC can not be significantly lower than the price of 1 BTC -- that's how the network is secured. Read the white paper. That's as wasteful as having to spend $90 to print a hundred-dollar bill.
With most of that $90 being Chinese, coal-fired electrical cost

Bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced. Btw the same "coal-fired" energy is used to support fiat.

Now you seem to have an exact idea on how much for example a dollar (or a yuan) actually costs to produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend  etc. Mind to share the number?

Of course bitcoin is not responsible for how mining energy is produced, bitcoin is just a codebase, can't do anything without people.
The fact that most of the mining happens i China on government-subsidized, 70% coal-fired power is just a fact. That's how it is, AGD.

The revamped $100 bill costs 12.5 cents to produce — a 60% increase over the 7.8 cents it cost to print the older version of the bill.
Hope this helps.

Production cost is easy to google. How about my question? (remember: produce, secure, transfer, hold, defend - and add recycling cost, salaries, cost for storing, cost of couterfeiting etc etc etc.)

The price will be much higher than the actual prodution cost and this is also higher than Bitcoins mining cost. Again, you need to understand, that you are not here to "help", but to discuss. Stop your "hope this helps" bullshit already. It sounds arrogant and also lets you look like an idiot, combined with the lack of actual content, that you provide.

If you include the price of your laptop, your internet connection, your iPhone, your "hardware wallet," all the "bitcoin businesses" that get VC funding and piss it away, all the time you waste on the internet getting ripped off & pumping BTC, I'll include the cost of brick & mortar banks.

Deal?

See what I mean? You can't provide any content to support your statement. You don't know the actual price and energy that is wasted for fiat, though you are stating that Bitcoin mining is "a waste of energy" and definitely higher than fiat. All that yaddayadda about "cost of my laptop" have no relevance for this discussion, because I don't use it only for Bitcoin transactions.

Conversely, banks aren't only used to store your money. They assert and underwrite business ventures, they finance houses and cars, that sort of thing.
But, if you insist, it costs me exactly zero dollars and zero zero cents to secure my $100 bill. I keep it in my mattress, which I already have.

How much would it cost for me to send 100000$ USD to China?

You don't have $100k, so it'll cost you nothing. How often do you plan on sending the $100k you don't have to China?
My turn: How many bitcoins would it take you to wipe your butt, after realizing there's no toilet paper on the roll? See?! You can't wipe your butt with bitcoins, period! Checkmate!

I can come up with outrageous shit that happens maybe once in a lifetime too. Though I've actually *did* wipe my butt with a dollar bill once, and I *never* had to send $100k to China.

[Vikingr]

I think in your place the electricity is at high price, as in our country electricity and the consumption for mining is not at high price, we are also using the solar panels for that so we have zero expenditure on mining, you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.

[Blacula X]

you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.

Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.

No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.

[Snorek]

What if ... Satoshi planned all that and created bitcoin so he can sell ASIC devices ?

He owns more than 1 million Bitcoin, do you think he really need more?

I am surprised that people who talk about bitcoin's power usage are usually quiet about energy, time, effort needed to produce FIAT, mint gold bars and then guard it, transport it, replace old banknotes with new etc.
Creation of bitcoin and production of money can't be compared directly but I feel conventional money creation consumes more resources overall.

[Yakamoto]

What if ... Satoshi planned all that and created bitcoin so he can sell ASIC devices ?

He owns more than 1 million Bitcoin, do you think he really need more?

I am surprised that people who talk about bitcoin's power usage are usually quiet about energy, time, effort needed to produce FIAT, mint gold bars and then guard it, transport it, replace old banknotes with new etc.
Creation of bitcoin and production of money can't be compared directly but I feel conventional money creation consumes more resources overall.

It all comes down to how you view it, but technically speaking traditional, paper money does use more resources overall to design, produce, and maintain over long-ish periods of time. Energy and effort are required to be put into all things, that is what gives commodities their values. If anyone could build a house without having to put a lot of energy into it, we wouldn't see buildings with $200k+ price tags.

[Blacula X]

you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.

Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.

No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.

The point is it is an investment, a current killowatt solar setup is around $1,100 which puts out around 6-7 kwh a day in favorable conditions.

Now you still need to buy a diesel generator those aren't free you're definitely right, it is MUCH cheaper to do that and can run through the night.

Let's say you live in Italy, a gallon of diesel cost 4.725 usd. Ok so a generator running at 30% efficiency is going to produce around 11.5kwh per gallon, lets say to keep this easy you use .6 a gallon to get the kwh equivalent of the solar panel.

So let's say you pay 200 for the generator then you are $900 usd in savings compared to the kwh of the solar panels.

So you would pay $2.835 a day in fuel to get the same power output of the panels (not taking in volatile fuel rates) This means it would take the panels 318 days to be a better solution for your electric needs. A long time sure, but again i am sure we can all agree no one would mine on diesel.

These solar panels of yours, they work good at night? Or do we only mine when the sun is at the apex, because difficulty only increases, by, what, 8% today?

[Blacula X]

you can also buy a solar panel and start mining for free.

Pick one.
Solar panels are some expensive shit, will cost an order of magnitude more than burning coal. That's why China burns coal

Panels are reusable and NOT only for mining. This also gives you essentially "free" electric after the initial investment and lets you really get a longer use out of miners.

No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.

The point is it is an investment, a current killowatt solar setup is around $1,100 which puts out around 6-7 kwh a day in favorable conditions.

Now you still need to buy a diesel generator those aren't free you're definitely right, it is MUCH cheaper to do that and can run through the night.

Let's say you live in Italy, a gallon of diesel cost 4.725 usd. Ok so a generator running at 30% efficiency is going to produce around 11.5kwh per gallon, lets say to keep this easy you use .6 a gallon to get the kwh equivalent of the solar panel.

So let's say you pay 200 for the generator then you are $900 usd in savings compared to the kwh of the solar panels.

So you would pay $2.835 a day in fuel to get the same power output of the panels (not taking in volatile fuel rates) This means it would take the panels 318 days to be a better solution for your electric needs. A long time sure, but again i am sure we can all agree no one would mine on diesel.

These solar panels of yours, they work good at night? Or do we only mine when the sun is at the apex, because difficulty only increases, by, what, 8% today?

The math is limiting to 7kwh a day and a battery in use, but miners don't need to be even really used in this situation. The point is if it is a longer term use the solar panels are an investment that seems to pay off.

Backtrack a little: you're comparing solar to the cost of running a diesel generator in Italy, paying $4.725/gal. You don't want to do that, don't mine in Italy with a diesel generator. Because Chinese miners are paying $.03/KWh, you'll go broke on diesel or solar.

TL;DR: FAIK, solar can not compete with coal, price-wise. If you have real data I can look at (like a link), we can start from there.

[Blacula X]

Backtrack a little: you're comparing solar to the cost of running a diesel generator in Italy, paying $4.725/gal. You don't want to do that, don't mine in Italy with a diesel generator. Because Chinese miners are paying $.03/KWh, you'll go broke on diesel or solar.

You're focusing on little things, the point is we aren't talking about china being the only miners, and it really doesn't matter what china is paying t mine. What matters to miners is if it is profitable for them to mine, and if the electric cost seems to expensive where they live but yet they want to mine and are willing to put up an investment for solar panels it can definitely work and work decently.

But mining on solar, diesel, or even grid power across most western countries *is* unprofitable. That's why Bitcoin is mined in places like China and Iceland (where bitcoin use isn't even legal). The solar panels *will never pay for themselves*. Mining on grid power, which is constant, doesn't require batteries and inverters and stuff, and is far cheaper, still doesn't make sense. *That's why it's not done much.*

[Snorek]

No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.

Solar collectors plantation in the middle of Sahara would save all humanity energy problems, an it is actually not a problem to put them there.
The problem is transferring that collected energy over extremely long distance (power loss is simply to severe), there is also no 'battery technology' available to save collected energy for later.

[Blacula X]

Backtrack a little: you're comparing solar to the cost of running a diesel generator in Italy, paying $4.725/gal. You don't want to do that, don't mine in Italy with a diesel generator. Because Chinese miners are paying $.03/KWh, you'll go broke on diesel or solar.

You're focusing on little things, the point is we aren't talking about china being the only miners, and it really doesn't matter what china is paying t mine. What matters to miners is if it is profitable for them to mine, and if the electric cost seems to expensive where they live but yet they want to mine and are willing to put up an investment for solar panels it can definitely work and work decently.

But mining on solar, diesel, or even grid power across most western countries *is* unprofitable. That's why Bitcoin is mined in places like China and Iceland (where bitcoin use isn't even legal). The solar panels *will never pay for themselves*. Mining on grid power, which is constant, doesn't require batteries and inverters and stuff, and is far cheaper, still doesn't make sense. *That's why it's not done much.*

Did you not read the math I just had posted, US electric power a standard rate being .13kwh on grid, say you are mining a total of 7kwh worth a day and plan to mine for 5 years you will pay either $.91 (91 cents) each day. ($332.15 a year) ($1660.75 for 5 years) or $1100 for the solar setup. The solar panels have paid for themselves in this set up.

No one is mining in US @ $.13, not bitcoin, not for profit, that's crazy talk.
Mining is done in China, @ $.03
You talk about $1100 for the solar setup, which works only when the sun shines. NO ONE CURRENTLY MINES ON SOLAR, they're lying to you if they say they do.

In short, please provide some actual data (hardware, specs, miners currently mining with solar power) I can verify for myself, as in links, or this is pointless.

[Blacula X]

No, solar power, even in the middle of the Sahara, is much more expensive than running a diesel generator. Which, in turn, is much more expensive than burning coal. That's why it makes zero sense, that's why IRL power companies burn coal.

Solar collectors plantation in the middle of Sahara would save all humanity energy problems, an it is actually not a problem to put them there.
The problem is transferring that collected energy over extremely long distance (power loss is simply to severe), there is also no 'battery technology' available to save collected energy for later.

Yes, there are battery solutions, they're expensive as f8ck. You can also pump water uphill, and run it back through a microhydro turbine at night. Also impractical/expensive as f8ck. We're not looking for stuff that's technologically feasible, we're trying to find something that can compete with coal-fired, government-subsidized $.03KWh.

[Wendigo]

Guys can I chime in on the profitability of solar panels debate? In my country solar panels are mostly used to power water heaters and bear in mind that the weather conditions here are relatively good throughout the year so there is usually sufficient solar energy from the sun to heat your water. But what are you going to do when the weather conditions are not optimal for the solar panels to work efficiently like in the winter and fall when the weather is cloudy and the sun is not out? Unless your solar panel mining farm is in a tropical country with non-stop sunny weather I doubt your solar panel installation will pay off in the long run. And solar panels are not cheap either and require an initial investment on top of your other mining hardware so in the end you are putting in a lot of cash and rely upon many changeable factors that can lead to negative profit easily. At least with grid power you know what you are getting 24/7 and can project what the current and future expenses will be according to the increasing difficulty.

[Erzatium]

why is the bitcoin using t much power that's only great because how many publicity he gets
how better it is for the future of the coin. And he wont disappear is more and more people are using them.
so be patient he will be big.

[AsaroUk]

Bitcoin is going to be more popular in the future and that is perfect for the people with Bitcoin already and the most are also hoping that it will be more worth.
But the bad thing is that you cant know what is going to happen so you need also to take some risks.

[Labumi]

Bitcoin is going to be more popular in the future and that is perfect for the people with Bitcoin already and the most are also hoping that it will be more worth.
But the bad thing is that you cant know what is going to happen so you need also to take some risks.

Yup, Bitcoin will be much more popular in the future and a lot more fun in the future. Because Bitoin will be one of the currencies that will be crowded with users because it is always the transaction digitally. You have to know that all the stores have already switched to digital and they use media digital payment. And this is a wonderful beginning for Bitcoin.

[bittrojan]

i never thought about this,i'm not a miner,so i dont think i spent many power. but bitcoin miners should consider about this,in future if they still mine bitcoin,they will spent so many power just for their rich,its really selfish. they should use alternative power to mine bitcoin.

[GamingBro]

Bitcoin is using many power but anyway it brings money to people who mining and they don't care about overusing. At my opinion need limit on using power.

[PinkLlama]

It's using power for mining. It's a crucial part of Bitcoin, without which it couldn't exist.