Banks Consume Over Three Times More Energy Than Bitcoin

[Gururapyco]

This helps the student to earn a lot of money, but it consumes a lot of electricity to run the Bitcoin-based virtual currency. This is quite affecting the environment when producing too much electrical energy

That's why countries that keep using coal to create electricity should finaly change for other sources like wind, water and solar panels. Nothing will change just because we say that thing are going wrong.

[DooMAD]

I'm curious to know when they says "banks", do they mean literally just the banks or also the intermediaries like Automated Clearing Houses and all the Visa/MasterCard/AmEx/etc infrastructure?  Perhaps the real figure is even worse for fiat and the environmental scales actually tip further in our favour.

The problem, is that Bitcoin Usage is growing exponentially at an alarming speed,
the Banking sector is using ~ the same amount of power as it has every year for the past 10 years.
In other words the Utilities can easily keep up with the Banking sector because it energy growth is gradual and it has been around since even before the utilities. Bitcoin is not even 10 years old and it will be using more than the banking sector within 2 years and keep wanting more.

And at this point, I'm convinced that you just hate bitcoin for what it is now. Idk where are you getting your stats from, and with the amount of digitization and infrastructure added to banks after a couple decades, I don't think their power consumption would be the same as to where it was back then. Imagine, AC units, a bunch of computers, servers etc. etc. are being used by them everyday, and do you think with those added things electricity would remain stagnant? Of course not.

It's worth considering that Zin-Zang's presence in this thread is purely to promote the "energy efficient" shitecoin in his sig.  He might think he's doing a good job of promoting it, but since it's tied to his name and all he does is spout a load of mindless drivel all over the boards, he's probably doing more harm than good to the reputation of his preferred alt.  Judging by his posts, I'm happy to assume he's a total moron and I would strongly recommend against investing in any project he's actively promoting.

[Zin-Zang]

The problem, is that Bitcoin Usage is growing exponentially at an alarming speed,
the Banking sector is using ~ the same amount of power as it has every year for the past 10 years.
In other words the Utilities can easily keep up with the Banking sector because it energy growth is gradual and it has been around since even before the utilities. Bitcoin is not even 10 years old and it will be using more than the banking sector within 2 years and keep wanting more.

And at this point, I'm convinced that you just hate bitcoin for what it is now. Idk where are you getting your stats from, and with the amount of digitization and infrastructure added to banks after a couple decades, I don't think their power consumption would be the same as to where it was back then. Imagine, AC units, a bunch of computers, servers etc. etc. are being used by them everyday, and do you think with those added things electricity would remain stagnant? Of course not.

It's worth considering that Zin-Zang's presence in this thread is purely to promote the "energy efficient" shitecoin in his sig.  He might think he's doing a good job of promoting it, but since it's tied to his name and all he does is spout a load of mindless drivel all over the boards, he's probably doing more harm than good to the reputation of his preferred alt.  Judging by his posts, I'm happy to assume he's a total moron and I would strongly recommend against investing in any project he's actively promoting.

Personal hate speech toward me is all you got , looks to me like you are the jackass.

So how come bitcoin developers are too stupid to make the PoW more energy efficient?
Answer that doomad.

*I am sure the miners would appreciate the lower energy bills.*

FYI:
Cars improve their gas mileage.
Lights become more energy efficient.
Appliances improve their energy efficiently.
Almost every product either maintains or improves their energy use every few years, while bitcoin just wastes more with no increase in performance.

Wasting Energy is Lame ,and the people ignoring it in bitcoin are also lame doomad.
In other words go fix your shit!, so we don't have to point it out.

[DooMAD]

Personal hate speech toward me is all you got , looks to me like you are the jackass.

So how come bitcoin developers are too stupid to make the PoW more energy efficient?
Answer that doomad.

*I am sure the miners would appreciate the lower energy bills.*

The fact that your question demonstrates your total lack of any understanding of the nuances involved only supports what I'm saying.  It's down to the hardware manufacturers to make the ASICs as energy efficient as they can.  Miners need to take that into consideration when they make their purchases.  In terms of the algorithm, it's not as simple as merely "making it more energy efficient", it's about finding consensus to change it.  Changes to the algorithm invariably require a hardfork and also tend to have consequences for the overall security of the network.  People need to agree before it can be replaced with a new one.  Devs can't just go around making whatever changes they like.  It doesn't work that way.  At least try to have a rudimentary comprehension of how this stuff works before you go running your mouth off, please.

[Catch-22]

Banks would soon include bitcoin in their portfolio of services. Does that mean the electricity required will be doubled? 

[Zin-Zang]

Personal hate speech toward me is all you got , looks to me like you are the jackass.

So how come bitcoin developers are too stupid to make the PoW more energy efficient?
Answer that doomad.

*I am sure the miners would appreciate the lower energy bills.*

The fact that your question demonstrates your total lack of any understanding of the nuances involved only supports what I'm saying.  It's down to the hardware manufacturers to make the ASICs as energy efficient as they can.  Miners need to take that into consideration when they make their purchases.  In terms of the algorithm, it's not as simple as merely "making it more energy efficient", it's about finding consensus to change it.  Changes to the algorithm invariably require a hardfork and also tend to have consequences for the overall security of the network.  People need to agree before it can be replaced with a new one.  Devs can't just go around making whatever changes they like.  It doesn't work that way.  At least try to have a rudimentary comprehension of how this stuff works before you go running your mouth off, please.

You just said an algo change could make the difference,

Devs can change any damn thing they like, did they not soft fork and shove segwit down everyone throat, that no one really wanted.
Or have you forgotten why bitcoin split into two separate communities when it used to be only one.
They could slowly hybrid fork into a more energy efficient PoW algo and transition over a year or two.
(ASICS have to be replaced within every two years anyway.)

Fact is the Devs are too lazy to move to another PoW and too lazy to move to PoS.

So the world has to suffer because your bitcoin devs are too lazy to fix their wasteful consensus method.

And you go around defending lazy people and insult people that have already moved to a energy solution for their coin.

What kind of dumbass does that make you?


FYI:
You don't think the miners want a cheaper energy bill?
I suggest you poll them , and I bet they do want their energy cost to be lower so they can make more profit.
 

[DooMAD]

The fact that your question demonstrates your total lack of any understanding of the nuances involved only supports what I'm saying.  It's down to the hardware manufacturers to make the ASICs as energy efficient as they can.  Miners need to take that into consideration when they make their purchases.  In terms of the algorithm, it's not as simple as merely "making it more energy efficient", it's about finding consensus to change it.  Changes to the algorithm invariably require a hardfork and also tend to have consequences for the overall security of the network.  People need to agree before it can be replaced with a new one.  Devs can't just go around making whatever changes they like.  It doesn't work that way.  At least try to have a rudimentary comprehension of how this stuff works before you go running your mouth off, please.

You just said an algo change could make the difference,

Devs can change any damn thing they like, did they not soft fork and shove segwit down everyone throat, that no one really wanted.
They could slowly hybrid fork into a more energy efficient PoW algo and transition over a year or two.

Fact is the Devs are too lazy to move to another PoW and too lazy to move to PoS.

So the world has to suffer because your bitcoin devs are too lazy to fix their wasteful consensus method.

And you go around defending lazy people and insult people that have already moved to a energy solution for their coin.

What kind of dumbass does that make you?

FYI:
You don't think the miners want a cheaper energy bill?
I suggest you poll them , and I bet they do want their energy cost to be lower so they can make more profit.

Yes, a change of algorithm could make it more energy efficient.  But if the miners care about their money, what they absolutely don't want to do is have to buy all new hardware because their current hardware isn't compatible with whatever new algorithm gets proposed.  ASICs are built for one hash function.  It's more energy efficient that way ( ).  So, believe it or not, it's actually the miners who would be most strongly opposed to changing the algorithm.  If everyone else on the network decided that we had to change the algorithm, but the miners decided to keep using the old one because they don't want to replace their mining gear, we then have a big problem.  This, in turn leads to the aforementioned security issues.  If we experience a sudden drop in hashrate, it could leave the network vulnerable to attack.  It's all network effects and market forces.  If you can't even understand why it works like it does, don't go bleating about what you think could be done better.  

You have to earn the right to call people a dumbass by making sure that you know what you're talking about first, dumbass.

[Zin-Zang]

The fact that your question demonstrates your total lack of any understanding of the nuances involved only supports what I'm saying.  It's down to the hardware manufacturers to make the ASICs as energy efficient as they can.  Miners need to take that into consideration when they make their purchases.  In terms of the algorithm, it's not as simple as merely "making it more energy efficient", it's about finding consensus to change it.  Changes to the algorithm invariably require a hardfork and also tend to have consequences for the overall security of the network.  People need to agree before it can be replaced with a new one.  Devs can't just go around making whatever changes they like.  It doesn't work that way.  At least try to have a rudimentary comprehension of how this stuff works before you go running your mouth off, please.

You just said an algo change could make the difference,

Devs can change any damn thing they like, did they not soft fork and shove segwit down everyone throat, that no one really wanted.
They could slowly hybrid fork into a more energy efficient PoW algo and transition over a year or two.

Fact is the Devs are too lazy to move to another PoW and too lazy to move to PoS.

So the world has to suffer because your bitcoin devs are too lazy to fix their wasteful consensus method.

And you go around defending lazy people and insult people that have already moved to a energy solution for their coin.

What kind of dumbass does that make you?

FYI:
You don't think the miners want a cheaper energy bill?
I suggest you poll them , and I bet they do want their energy cost to be lower so they can make more profit.

Yes, a change of algorithm could make it more energy efficient.  But if the miners care about their money, what they absolutely don't want to do is have to buy all new hardware because their current hardware isn't compatible with whatever new algorithm gets proposed.  ASICs are built for one hash function.  It's more energy efficient that way.  So, believe it or not, it's actually the miners who would be most strongly opposed to changing the algorithm.  If everyone else on the network decided that we had to change the algorithm, but the miners decided to keep using the old one because they don't want to replace their mining gear, we then have a big problem.  This, in turn leads to the aforementioned security issues.  If we experience a sudden drop in hashrate, it could leave the network vulnerable to attack.  It's all network effects and market forces.  If you can't even understand why it works like it does, don't go bleating about what you think could be done better.  

You have to earn the right to call people a dumbass by making sure that you know what you're talking about first, dumbass.

ASICS have to be replaced every 2 years, at 2 years old it is not even worth turning on.

Your pretense that a 2nd PoW can not be forked in and slowly become the dominant hash while phasing the old PoW out, shows you don't know shit.

Sorry , but I call a dumbass when I see one , and you are a dumbass.
(I consider that a right granted by the creator.)

FYI:
It ain't my coin wasting the world's electricity , it is yours.

FYI2:
The miners would jump for joy , for new asics that cut their electricity bills in half.
They have to buy all new asics within 2 years anyway!

FYI3:
https://www.myriadcoin.org/
They support 5 Algorithms and you are saying the bitcoin devs are too stupid to hybrid two algorithms while phasing the wasteful one out.
 
FYI4:
Hell , even Theymos wanted Bitcoin to evolve into a 3 algo coin in 2016, did you want to insult him too?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1654457

[DooMAD]

If you actually learned to read, I never said it couldn't be done, I'm merely pointing out that it's not as simple as your tiny insect brain perceives it to be.  It still requires a hardfork unless someone has an absolute stroke of genius (so clearly not you) and finds a backwards-compatible way to implement it.  And SegWit was categorically not a case of devs forcing a change.  It took ages to get miners to agree to run it and even required the intervention of a non-Core contributor to write some new code in the form of BIP91 to help break the deadlock.  You and franky1 are constantly trying to rewrite history from this period and you both need to get a clue in your empty heads.

Putting that idiocy to one side, now your options are either:

a) Make it yourself,
b) Pay someone to make it,
c) STFU and wait patiently for someone to care enough to make it because they want to.

Then, once you've done one of those, do all of these:

Put it on testnet,
Find and fix any security issues and other bugs,
Put it out there in the market and see who runs it.

Or did you naturally assume that developers are just going to drop everything and start work on all this right away because you called them lazy?  You don't get to call others lazy if you aren't going to lift a finger to make it happen.  That's called hypocrisy. 

[Zin-Zang]

You're just peeved because Franky1 is smarter than you.  
(No one but you mentioned him here.)

You're the one that claims Bitcoin is the next coming, so go fix it yourself.

Some of us have already fixed it in our coins.  
(Source code is available to all.)

or just keep lying and pretend it is all ok.  

In the immortal words of iamnotback,  I have better things to do that waste any more time on you.