Bitcoin Forum
October 22, 2017, 03:29:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Transaction cost in kWh  (Read 4610 times)
amaclin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 01:47:05 PM
 #61

Quote
there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently
Yes. It is basics of physics.

Quote
other than heating the facility in winter
and this is not "work" in terms of "proof-of-work"

Quote
Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized
Perpetuum Mobile? Shocked Again? Oh, no!
1508642969
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508642969

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508642969
Reply with quote  #2

1508642969
Report to moderator
1508642969
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508642969

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508642969
Reply with quote  #2

1508642969
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508642969
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508642969

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508642969
Reply with quote  #2

1508642969
Report to moderator
kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 01:51:44 PM
 #62

Quote
there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently
Yes. It is basics of physics.

Quote
other than heating the facility in winter
and this is not "work" in terms of "proof-of-work"

Quote
Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized
Perpetuum Mobile? Shocked Again? Oh, no!


Bullshit, the energy being there doesn't mean it can be easily 100% efficiently utilized. Try convert sunlight into electricity with 100% efficiency? or build a simple household boiler with 100% efficiency?

In terms of heating the facility, it's usually a facility that doesn't need heating, most likely it needs cooling. Also it works only in winter.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 01:58:39 PM
 #63

What are you talking about? there's no proof the heat can be utilized efficiently, other than heating the facility in winter, all the big mining farms do not try to utilize the heat at all. Also even if the heat is 100% efficiently utilized, that only balance out the electricity cost. The hardware cost is still there, and most likely higher because now you want to use the heat, which means additional hardware components.

Correct. The initial investment costs for 22nm ASIC dev and testing is at least 5-10 million which has to be amortize across the costs of the products. The question is merely one of scale. If the costs have to be amortized over a few thousand miners than those miners will be very expensive. What if those costs are amortized over mass consumer items though? Space heaters, water heaters, ect??? We are talking about millions of units. What if you could buy a hot water heater that actually paid some of your electrical bill with transaction fees and block rewards?

There's also no proof there's political expense associated with DPoS. I'm a delegate in btsx, and I didn't spend anything to get voted in. Also, even if there is expense, as long as it stays within the eco-system, I don't see any problem with that. Unlike Bitcoin PoW, which transfers wealth out of the eco-system, into the pockets of hardware vendor and electric company.

BTSX is so small that the popularity contest doesn't involve much if any campaigning right now, just like if you ran for a local council position in a small town. There isn't much competition if any and the position typically just fills in the person of the best known name. With any political enterprise, as the stakes and interests scale up so do the campaign costs. As DPoS advocates indicate themselves, they expect industry leaders and prominent people who are not anonymous to become delegates(For social and security reasons). Controlling the currency would than be an important step that would indeed be lobbied for with millions of dollars spent on elections.

Current Fiat technically is a form of inflationary PoS. I could imagine in the future that some governments will likely co-opt an inflationary DPoS as well to give the illusion that people have control of their monetary system, much akin how democratic republics give the illusion that people have control of their representatives.

 I was just extrapolating the data and playing a "what if" BTSX overtook Bitcoin scenario. Where you are correct is BTSX will likely maintain extremely efficient and low costs for the election process. The reason for this is because it will be unlikely to ever grow much larger for many reasons I previously mentioned.


Bullshit, the energy being there doesn't mean it can be easily 100% efficiently utilized. Try convert sunlight into electricity with 100% efficiency? or build a simple household boiler with 100% efficiency?

In terms of heating the facility, it's usually a facility that doesn't need heating, most likely it needs cooling. Also it works only in winter.

Strawman much? Who ever claimed 100% efficiency? ASIC's are 99% efficient at converting electricity to heat and the initial production costs need to be amortized across all units.

Everyone worldwide needs to reheat food, dehydrate items , dry clothes, heat water year round. Most people worldwide need to heat their homes during half the year, some people need to do so most of the year.

kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:05:05 PM
 #64


Strawman much? Who ever claimed 100% efficiency? ASIC's are 99% efficient at converting electricity to heat and the initial production costs need to be amortized across all units.


I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:10:06 PM
 #65

I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

None of this involves fantasy, but a recognition of current strengths and weaknesses and a discussion of future solutions.

Election costs are well known and studied. Are you assuming that interests won't compete for delegate seats like they do for normal politics?

ASIC costs and production isn't unique to Bitcoin. You realize that these are well known and documented costs and will naturally shrink with competition and scale. Why do you think you can buy a 20 dollar burner cell phone now? You do realize ASIC's exists in many cheap 10-20 dollar childrens toys, right?

kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:15:00 PM
 #66

I know You love to make up scenarios that simply doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "security holes" with PoS that doesn't exist in reality. You imagined "election costs" with DPoS that doesn't exist in reality. Now you are imagining "space heater", "water heater" that are PoW ASIC machines, that doesn't exist in reality. You know why? because they are horribly expensive, and inefficient to compete with mega mining farms, because as heaters, they can not be turned on all the time, therefore there's no way for them to ever compete with real mining farms in terms of efficiency.

Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

Election costs are well known and studied. Are you assuming that interests won't compete for delegate seats like they do for normal politics?

ASIC costs and production isn't unique to Bitcoin. You realize that these are well known and documented and costs will naturally shrink with competition and scale. Why do you think you can buy a 20 dollar burner cell phone now?

How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study".

per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:24:11 PM
 #67

How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study".

The Secretary-general isn't elected but appointed:

http://www.un.org/sg/appointment.shtml

....by elected officials who do ultimately have to campaign. So the answer is either a very costly sum of the campaign costs of all those that appointed them or N/A.

Or are you insinuating DPoS in the future will have appointed positions rather than elected positions?


per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale.

Yes, I do expect the hash rate to increase , and electricity usage increases. This is exactly what will force decentralization and miners to need to use ASICs as products which create useful heat energy with the side effect of free PoW which can than in turn be used to subsidize the energy costs and amortize the unit costs. I don't get why you fail to understand the economics.  

amaclin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:29:15 PM
 #68

Quote
Let's just keep the topic on something that does exist in reality, that is the $500 million PoW expense that is staring Bitcoin holders in the face!

Let me add - these funds were spent most for processing and securing transactions to Satoshi Dice and other gambling.  Grin
Welcome to bitcoin!
kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:33:42 PM
 #69

How much is the campaign cost to be elected as the Secretary-general of United Nations? show me your "well known study".

The Secretary-general isn't elected but appointed:

http://www.un.org/sg/appointment.shtml

....by elected officials who do ultimately have to campaign. So the answer is either a very costly sum of the campaign costs of all those that appointed them or N/A.

Or are you insinuating DPoS in the future will have appointed positions rather than elected positions?


per unit cost will shrink in ASIC, the total cost of PoW CAN NOT shrink, otherwise how do you secure the network against 51% attack? PoW expense will have to be more and more expensive as Bitcoin grows in scale.

Yes, I do expect the hash rate to increase , and electricity usage increase. This is exactly what will force decentralization and miners to need to use ASICs as products which create useful heat energy with the side effect of free PoW which can than in turn be used to subsidize the energy costs and amortize the unit costs. I don't get why you fail to understand the economics.  

OMG. The appointment of secretary general is an election process! with candidates!, how much does it cost to be a winning candidates?

Again, you are questioning reality with your imagined scenario/economics. If it was indeed profitable, it would be in mass usage by now. The REALITY is that it is NOT profitable to run a ASIC as a heater, because it CAN NOT be turned on all the time, therefore the hardware cost can not be easily recouped. It has no hope to compete against a full time mining farm. But hey if you think you are smarter than everybody else, go ahead and build your ASIC heater, and let me know of your huge product success.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:39:51 PM
 #70

OMG. The appointment of secretary general is an election process! with candidates!, how much does it cost to be a winning candidates?

Yes, that is what the link I sent you described. They are appointed through an election process involving elected officials who ran popularity campaigns. This no way is akin to the general public or users electing an official directly.

Yes, if BTSX simply has small election of government and industry insiders appointing DPoS delegates the election costs are minimal. I agree. Is that what you envision of BTSX?



kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:44:30 PM
 #71

OMG. The appointment of secretary general is an election process! with candidates!, how much does it cost to be a winning candidates?

Yes, that is what the link I sent you described. They are appointed through an election process involving elected officials who ran popularity campaigns. This no way is akin to the general public or users electing an official directly.

Yes, if BTSX simply has small election of government and industry insiders appointing DPoS delegates the election costs are minimal. I agree. Is that what you envision of BTSX?




oh, so only general public election are considered election now? BTSX delegate is elected by a group of stakeholders, it's not a general public election. It's more like a IEEE or ICANN board election, and how much does it cost to be elected as IEEE or ICANN board member?

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:46:35 PM
 #72

Again, you are questioning reality with your imagined scenario. If it was indeed profitable, it would be in mass usage by now. The REALITY is that it is NOT profitable to run a ASIC as a heater, because it CAN NOT be turned on all the time, therefore the hardware cost can not be easily recouped. It has no hope to compete against a full time mining farm.

Some heaters are on all the time, but lets assume that we have intermittent Asics competing with full time Asics for a moment.

Option A-
ASIC hot water heater running 20% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / millions of units) - 20% normal rate of transaction fees and block rewards compared to standalone miners

Option B-
ASIC Standalone miner running 100% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / thousands of units) + electricity costs + possible costs for cooling


Do the math . What is more efficient?

P.S... remember in option A electricity isn't included because its a needed product already consumed.

inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:51:54 PM
 #73


oh, so only general public election are considered election now? BTSX delegate is elected by a group of stakeholders, it's not a general public election. It's more like a IEEE or ICANN board election, and how much does it cost to be elected as IEEE or ICANN board member?

Where can the general public vote for an IEEE  or ICANN official? Are there polling booths?

Yes, I repeatedly claim that BTSX will likely have cheap and efficient election costs. This is because the stake holders will remain relatively small in numbers. If those stake holders increase to lets say 380 million than you should expect the costs to increase as well if they all can vote.

kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:54:07 PM
 #74

Again, you are questioning reality with your imagined scenario. If it was indeed profitable, it would be in mass usage by now. The REALITY is that it is NOT profitable to run a ASIC as a heater, because it CAN NOT be turned on all the time, therefore the hardware cost can not be easily recouped. It has no hope to compete against a full time mining farm.

Some heaters are on all the time, but lets assume that we have intermittent Asics competing with full time Asics for a moment.

Option A-
ASIC hot water heater running 20% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / millions of units) - 20% normal rate of transaction fees and block rewards compared to standalone miners

Option B-
ASIC Standalone miner running 100% of the time cost efficiency = (amortized costs of design, testing, build, and shipping / thousands of units) + electricity costs + possible costs for cooling


Do the math . What is more efficient?

P.S... remember in option A electricity isn't included because its a needed product already consumed.

They can not be on all the time, why would you have them on when the temperature is above 76F? Waterheater can not be on all the time neither, they run in cycles, otherwise you are just wasting water/energy.

The problem is when you can't have them on near100% of the time, you could never recoup your hardware cost, because like you said, new ASIC will be come cheaper and more efficient, therefore driving up the difficulty, and your old hardware, when not on 100% of the time, will never recoup the cost. Which makes your ASIC part of the investment a loss when competing against a real mining farm. So you basically bought a very expensive space heater/water heater, when you could have gotten a regular one cheaper, even considering the total cost of ownership.

Again, like I told you weeks ago, when your imagined scenario doesn't exist in reality, you need to first question your scenario, not question reality. Also again, if you truly believe in your scenario, then build the product, and let me know of your huge success.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 02:58:12 PM
 #75

They can not be on all the time, why would you have them on when the temperature is above 76F? Waterheater can not be on all the time neither, they run in cycles, otherwise you are just wasting water/energy.

The problem is when you can't have them on 100% of the time, you could never recoup your hardware cost, because like you said, new ASIC will be come cheaper and more efficient, therefore driving up the difficulty, and your old hardware, when not on 100% of the time, will never recoup the cost. Which makes your investment a loss when competing against a real mining farm.

In the equation above the ASIC hot water heater are on 20% of the time, silly. The transaction rewards and block rewards merely subsidize the electricity or amortize the unit cost. They don't need to pay 100% of the unit costs or electrical costs as that is just a bonus. People need hot water regardless, and some  Wink people like hot water when its overcast or in the morning or at night.

Do the math. What is more efficient?

kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 03:00:25 PM
 #76

They can not be on all the time, why would you have them on when the temperature is above 76F? Waterheater can not be on all the time neither, they run in cycles, otherwise you are just wasting water/energy.

The problem is when you can't have them on 100% of the time, you could never recoup your hardware cost, because like you said, new ASIC will be come cheaper and more efficient, therefore driving up the difficulty, and your old hardware, when not on 100% of the time, will never recoup the cost. Which makes your investment a loss when competing against a real mining farm.

In the equation above the ASIC's hot water heater are on 20% of the time, silly. The transaction rewards and block rewards merely subsidize the electricity or amortize the unit cost. They don't need to pay 100% of the unit costs or electrical costs as that is just a bonus. People need hot water regardless, and some  Wink people like hot water when its overcast in the morning or at night.

They don't need to pay 100% of the unit cost, but they do need to pay 100% of the ASIC component cost, otherwise you are just buying a more expensive heater for no reason. The problem is, with 20% up time, there is no hope of ever paying back the 100% ASIC cost, even with the electricity cost savings. Therefore, you are indeed just buying a more expensive heater(that requires constant on internet) for no reason.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 03:02:43 PM
 #77

They don't need to pay 100% of the unit cost, but they do need to pay 100% of the ASIC component cost, otherwise you are just buying a more expensive heater for no reason. The problem is, with 20% up time, there is no hope of ever paying back the 100% ASIC cost, even with the electricity cost savings. Therefore, you are indeed just buying a more expensive heater for no reason.

Ahh... you are making the mistake assuming ASICs cost a lot to manufacture once the initial investment is amortized. It is merely a matter of scale.

You do realize ASIC's exists in many cheap 10-20 dollar children's toys, right?

kokojie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 03:05:55 PM
 #78

They don't need to pay 100% of the unit cost, but they do need to pay 100% of the ASIC component cost, otherwise you are just buying a more expensive heater for no reason. The problem is, with 20% up time, there is no hope of ever paying back the 100% ASIC cost, even with the electricity cost savings. Therefore, you are indeed just buying a more expensive heater for no reason.

Ahh... you are making the mistake assuming ASICs cost a lot to manufacture once the initial investment is amortized. It is merely a matter of scale.

You do realize ASIC's exists in many cheap 10-20 dollar children's toys, right?

10-20 dollar children's toy ASIC doesn't consume 1200W electricity. If you are going to use them as heaters, you need a ton of ASIC in there. These ASIC will make the heater cost extremely expensive compared to a regular heater.

btc: 15sFnThw58hiGHYXyUAasgfauifTEB1ZF6
monsterer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008


View Profile
October 02, 2014, 03:07:18 PM
 #79

Just wanted to make the point that transaction cost isn't measured in kWh, it's measured in plain kW since there is a finite amount of time it takes a transaction to be mined.
inBitweTrust
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644



View Profile
October 02, 2014, 03:10:01 PM
 #80

10-20 dollar children's toy ASIC doesn't consume 1200W electricity. If you are going to use them as heaters, you need a ton of ASIC in there.

Exactly, and more asics = more hashing power =  more payback. That 10-20 dollar toy cost is mainly due to marketing, distribution, and profits.... not for the "expensive" asic inside.

I'm going to leave off this conversation here as we will let history be the decider.

Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!