Megawatts or Megahash - rating miners.

[Jet Cash]

I'm starting to see new mining operations rated in MegaWatts, and I'm not sure of the reason. There is a lot of FUD being pushed about the energy consumption by miners, and I wonder if this rating is intended to reduce the creation of new mining operations. I can understand that MegaWatts are significant when calculating the running costs of mining operations,but is it an important consideration for the Bitcoin economy? Surely the MegaHash rating is more significant. I'm aware of the importance of the efficiency of mining rigs, and the recycling of the energy used in running mining equipment, but this doesn't seem to be a consideration in these reports.

[Ucy]

This would probably be a good idea if it discourage excessive energy consumption by large miners. Hopefully it pressures the miners to abandon the old way(which I believe has served it purpose) and adopt an efficient, clean, less energy consuming PoW, hybrid or other mining means.
I feel that having large mining farms defeat the whole purpose of Blockchain/decentralization.  
In my opinion, a decentralized system shouldn't have large concentrated hardware or consume as much energy as powerful companies with large energy consuming data centers.
If  "things" continue like this, mining could become very unprofitable and the whole mining will be unprofitably ran by single entity/company for their own agenda.

[bitcoindusts]

This would probably be a good idea if it discourage excessive energy consumption by large miners. Hopefully it pressures the miners to abandon the old way(which I believe has served it purpose) and adopt an efficient, clean, less energy consuming PoW, hybrid or other mining means.
I feel that having large mining farms defeat the whole purpose of Blockchain/decentralization.  
In my opinion, a decentralized system shouldn't have large concentrated hardware or consume as much energy as powerful companies with large energy consuming data centers.
If  "things" continue like this, mining could become very unprofitable and the whole mining will be unprofitably ran by single entity/company for their own agenda.

I do not think it does any thing at all.  It is just used to let the miners know how much watts they are consuming or some kind of scheme to attract more audience.  We all know that new terms, though old scheme, refreshes the market and caters audience.  I believe it is more on the marketing side.

[bitmover]

I can understand that MegaWatts are significant when calculating the running costs of mining operations,but is it an important consideration for the Bitcoin economy? Surely the MegaHash rating is more significant. I'm aware of the importance of the efficiency of mining rigs, and the recycling of the energy used in running mining equipment, but this doesn't seem to be a consideration in these reports.

I believe Megawatts is not that relevant, because the MegaHash can be different for the same MegaWatt as the price of each watt is different from one region to another.

Additionally, all this drama about energy costs and carbon has its days counted, imo. Renewable energy sources are growing exponentially.


source

Now with Tesla cars growing as well, the batteries and related tech are probably going to change things in this new decade, and on the next ones. This is my bet. I will try to make some money out of this, look for some ETF or companies like Tesla to invest.

[BrewMaster]

it is just the continuation of yet another big FUD in bitcoin world that usually comes out during any kind of drop whether small or big. it is based on the flawed assumption that the energy is being wasted since the FUDsters ignore all the utilities that bitcoin is providing on a global scale and all of that in the most decentralized way. if you start looking at things like that then you can see the current power consumption is way too little!
using megawatts is merely pointing to that power consumption and is an attempt to throw big numbers at people to scare them off.

[Jet Cash]

Additionally, all this drama about energy costs and carbon has its days counted, imo. Renewable energy sources are growing exponentially.

India's shift to Thorium reactors is going to make a big difference in my opinion. Once they have a clean energy source with a surplus, they are likely to use some of this for Bitcoin block mining. Will this affect centralisation? Probably, as I expect the banking world will start to build or buy mining farms as they increase their Bitcoin holdings.

[bitmover]

Probably, as I expect the banking world will start to build or buy mining farms as they increase their Bitcoin holdings.

If an Bitcoin ETF really shows up (what i believe is inevitable) we will soon see financial assets backed by bitcoins, fractional banking with bitcoin and so on. Banks will come in the next bull run, imo.

All this drama of energy costs will come to an end as well. Actually, energy costs of bitcoin mining is not a serious topic  imo.

Energy consumption is so far the only way to secure the network. The more energy we expend, the more secure we are. That´s the way bitcoin is designed.

Decentralized money is important now, as it can prevent wars, help fight poverty, give people freedom, etc.

It is up to other industries to build a more sustainable energy matrix.

[franky1]

I'm starting to see new mining operations rated in MegaWatts, and I'm not sure of the reason. There is a lot of FUD being pushed about the energy consumption by miners, and I wonder if this rating is intended to reduce the creation of new mining operations. I can understand that MegaWatts are significant when calculating the running costs of mining operations,but is it an important consideration for the Bitcoin economy? Surely the MegaHash rating is more significant. I'm aware of the importance of the efficiency of mining rigs, and the recycling of the energy used in running mining equipment, but this doesn't seem to be a consideration in these reports.

mega hash just indicates how secure the network is
mega watts indicates how expensive it is to secure it

but that megawatt cost is dumb for many reasons.. main one is not knowing which gen of asic the number is based on
and how accurate it is to what gen is actually running on the network
an s9 is 14thash at 1.3kw
an s17e is 73thash at 2.9kw

meaning over 5 s9 (6.5kw) does the same as 2.9kw
so if hashrate of 100exa = 1.37m s17 = ~4000mw/h
where as and s9 would be over 9,000mw/h
(note rough math for demo. not accurate so dont knitpick)

[paxmao]

You need both. You need to assess income (hasrate) and costs (MW). When btc goes down, the most efficient operations (leaders in costs) can keep up making money whereas others have to shut.

[BurtW]

You might find this interesting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=694401.msg56375694#msg56375694

[Jet Cash]

What happened to the old concept of one cpu = one vote?

I think I will introduce a new metric - megacost. If I start mining using solar panels, then my running costs will be zero. That assumes there is no additional cost for a network connection, and capital costs are ignored. Maybe I could even claim a carbon credit.

[odolvlobo]

I'm starting to see new mining operations rated in MegaWatts, and I'm not sure of the reason.

My guess is that a mining facility's hash rate can change depending on the equipment that gets installed, but their energy capacity is probably more constant. Since power capacity is a limiting factor on their operations, that's a natural way to classify the facility.

A similar example would be a farm. Since a farm can produce a variety of foods in varying amounts, the farm is measured by its area and not its production.