Please answer 3 technical questions

[Eamorr]

Using reason and logic only. Leave the emotion and speculation to the other threads please!!!

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

2. Is there any way to get the transaction time down to below 10 seconds? (i.e. suitable for buying a coffee or paying for my groceries)

3. Is centralization of the network inevitable?

[1713966568]

1713966568

[1713966568]

1713966568

[1713966568]

1713966568

[newIndia]

Using reason and logic only. Leave the emotion and speculation to the other threads please!!!

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

2. Is there any way to get the transaction time down to below 10 seconds? (i.e. suitable for buying a coffee or paying for my groceries)

3. Is centralization of the network inevitable?

1. Transaction volume does not have any direct co-relation with energy consumption of ASICs. ASICs find blocks where transactions are added.

2. 10 seconds !!! I think you meant to say 10 minutes. This is in the bitcoin protocol that at every 2016 blocks found, difficulty adjusts itself to average out the transaction confirmation time to 10 minutes. Only a hard fork can change it. But, that is not required in reality. For a coffee or groceries confirmations are not required as double spend will be more costly than the gain attacker will have. But, if you are selling a car or a house, wait for 6 confirmations, i.e. around an hour.

3. Only time can say.

[gmaxwell]

Using reason and logic only. Leave the emotion and speculation to the other threads please!!!

Let me match your request with another request: If you want to get useful answers please do some research first. Your questions betray misunderstandings of the most basic bitcoin concepts. When you post you consume other people's time.

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

2. Is there any way to get the transaction time down to below 10 seconds? (i.e. suitable for buying a coffee or paying for my groceries)

You are confusing transaction time and transaction confirmation time. Bitcoin transactions are basically instantaneous (just the time it takes to communicate the data) but it takes time for the transaction to become irreversible. The same is true for other payment mechanisms, e.g. credit card transactions can often be reversed for months, checks take weeks to clear... Making a 1:1 comparison is hard because Bitcoin is used in different ways from traditional payment systems (including anonymously). But it is not the case that the 10 minutes mean time between blocks itself has any fundamental implication for buying coffee.

3. Is centralization of the network inevitable?

Thats up to the users of Bitcoin.

[Eamorr]

Using reason and logic only. Leave the emotion and speculation to the other threads please!!!

Let me match your request with another request: If you want to get useful answers please do some research first. Your questions betray misunderstandings of the most basic bitcoin concepts. When you post you consume other people's time.

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

2. Is there any way to get the transaction time down to below 10 seconds? (i.e. suitable for buying a coffee or paying for my groceries)

You are confusing transaction time and transaction confirmation time. Bitcoin transactions are basically instantaneous (just the time it takes to communicate the data) but it takes time for the transaction to become irreversible. The same is true for other payment mechanisms, e.g. credit card transactions can often be reversed for months, checks take weeks to clear... Making a 1:1 comparison is hard because Bitcoin is used in different ways from traditional payment systems (including anonymously). But it is not the case that the 10 minutes mean time between blocks itself has any fundamental implication for buying coffee.

The consumer and the retailer don't care about the technical nuance you've described (that a transaction is separate to a confirmation).

3. Is centralization of the network inevitable?

Thats up to the users of Bitcoin.

I agree. I guess that would be a bad thing (i.e. potential for abuse), right?

[TookDk]

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners.

That is a common misunderstanding.
There is no need for confirmation for micro transaction.
To buy a cup of coffee or a meal does not need confirmation.
Buying a house or a car, then would a couple of confirmations properly be a good idea before the buyer drive away with the car.

Pay attentions to gmaxwell analogy with credit cards, then will it be more clear to you how bitcoin works.

[johoe]

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

The energy spent is approximately half the mining profit (since people would spend more energy to mine if you can make money from it).  So it roughly depends on how much the people are willing to pay for the transactions (at least at the time where most mining profits come from transaction fees).

This is not a technical question but an economic one.

[Eamorr]

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners.

That is a common misunderstanding.
There is no need for confirmation for micro transaction.
To buy a cup of coffee or a meal does not need confirmation.
Buying a house or a car, then would a couple of confirmations properly be a good idea before the buyer drive away with the car.

Pay attentions to gmaxwell analogy with credit cards, then will it be more clear to you how bitcoin works.

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

[Eamorr]

1. Assuming silicon ASICs have now approached their limit, how much energy (in Watts) would be required if there were 10bn people on the planet and there was an average of 10 transactions per person, per day?

The energy requirement for processing a transaction are very small and are completely unrelated to mining ASICs. Mining ASICS do not process transactions. They provably expend energy to make reversal of the history of transactions infeasible and for a given security level consume the same amount of energy regardless of the transaction level.

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

The energy spent is approximately half the mining profit (since people would spend more energy to mine if you can make money from it).  So it roughly depends on how much the people are willing to pay for the transactions (at least at the time where most mining profits come from transaction fees).

This is not a technical question but an economic one.

I guess transaction fees will have to go up to incentivise the miners? It's not a problem right now, but in a 10bn people doing x10 transactions a day, how much of a problem would it be? Can a farmer pay a supplier $5 with his mobile without having to incurr 10%/20%/30%? transaction fees?

I would love to see an econometric analysis of this based on where we are now and where we're going if we keep going at the same rate (factoring in price, market cap, price of electricity, mining difficulty, transaction fees, etc.) But I don't have the knowledge or expertise.

[TookDk]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

[shorena]

-snip-
Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

The stolen CC I pay my coffee with is certainly anonymous. Just because the plastic card has a name on it does not mean I am giving away my personal information.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

Payment processors could handle transactions like these, but honestly most of the time I pay for coffee they dont even check if the money I give them is real. Its a risk they are willing to take because the majority of the customers are honest. Frankly most of the customers are honest because they want to come back and as someone that once took a fake 200 € bill: my boss didnt care. Its like the robery that happens statistically once every X. You calculate with it and adjust your prices accordingly or get insurance that covers these things.

-snip-
I guess transaction fees will have to go up to incentivise the miners? It's not a problem right now, but in a 10bn people doing x10 transactions a day, how much of a problem would it be? Can a farmer pay a supplier $5 with his mobile without having to incurr 10%/20%/30%? transaction fees?

The more payments are made, the smaller the fee per payment. Assuming the blocksize is not a limit in your scenario.

I would love to see an econometric analysis of this based on where we are now and where we're going if we keep going at the same rate (factoring in price, market cap, price of electricity, mining difficulty, transaction fees, etc.) But I don't have the knowledge or expertise.

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

[Eamorr]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

[Eamorr]

I find your rationale unconvincing. I remain very skeptical that:

- Bitcoin is a usable real-world currency (a world where the majority of human-human transactions are around the $10 mark)
- The energy required to keep the network going is sustainable
- The network will remain decentralised

,particularly when cryptocurrency technology has moved on (a lot) since 2008.

I would argue that Bitcoin is outdated and impractical.

[TookDk]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

[gmaxwell]

That's all very fine. The "transaction" is useless unless it's confirmed by miners. The energy question (10bn people * 10 transactions per day) still stands.

Okay, so not only do you not search first, you apparently choose not to read: I just explained that the energy used by mining at a given security level is unrelated to the volume of transactions. It is the same regardless if there is one transaction or one hundred million transactions. The amount of energy related to the count of transactions is zero. So, there you go: If you insist on getting a binary answer to your ill poised question instead of learning, the answer is zero.

The consumer and the retailer don't care about the technical nuance you've described (that a transaction is separate to a confirmation).

They may well not, and so what of it?

[Rannasha]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

Transaction time with credit cards is not better than with Bitcoin. Both are (almost) instant when it comes to processing the transaction, but the actual confirmation can take as long as 90 days as CC payments can be reverted during this period for a variety of reasons.

Cash is obviously instant and irreversible, but comes with a bunch of its own drawbacks.

[Eamorr]

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

Like I said, I'm not an econometric expert (though you seem to be an expert on Bitcoin).

At one extreme: free mining is available anywhere on earth (phase 5)

At the other: all miners are switched off (phase 0).

In the middle somewhere, we range from:
phase 1: just a few miners are functioning (the big value/important transactions get mined, the small transactions aren't worth it)
phase 2: a good few miners are functioning (the system is only good for big and medium transactions)
phase 3: lots of miners functioning (everyone can send BTC about, but the small guys are beginning to feel it)
phase 4: a plentiful supply of miners (pretty much everyone gets to transact with hardly any restriction)

- The days of 4 are over
- We're in 3 and will be moving into 2. Silicon has stalled and electricity isn't getting any cheaper.

To calculate the timing on the transition from 5-> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 would require much more detailed analysis.

[Eamorr]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

Transaction time with credit cards is not better than with Bitcoin. Both are (almost) instant when it comes to processing the transaction, but the actual confirmation can take as long as 90 days as CC payments can be reverted during this period for a variety of reasons.

Cash is obviously instant and irreversible, but comes with a bunch of its own drawbacks.

I think this side-discussion is irrelevant to the original question. It's obvious the answer is "No" - you cannot get below 10 seconds. This has very serious practical implications for the deployment of Bitcoin at a global scale.

[Rannasha]

Go ahead, I did know nothing about bitcoin a year ago.

Like I said, I'm not an econometric expert (though you seem to be an expert on Bitcoin).

At one extreme: free mining is available anywhere on earth (phase 5)

At the other: all miners are switched off (phase 0).

In the middle somewhere, we range from:
phase 1: just a few miners are functioning (the big value/important transactions get mined, the small transactions aren't worth it)
phase 2: a good few miners are functioning (the system is only good for big and medium transactions)
phase 3: lots of miners functioning (everyone can send BTC about, but the small guys are beginning to feel it)
phase 4: a plentiful supply of miners (pretty much everyone gets to transact with hardly any restriction)

- The days of 4 are over
- We're in 3 and will be moving into 2. Silicon has stalled and electricity isn't getting any cheaper.

To calculate the timing on the transition from 5-> 4 -> 3 -> 2 -> 1 -> 0 would require much more detailed analysis.

You're still getting it wrong. The number of miners has no effect on how many transactions can be processed. Whether it's 1 miner or 1 million miners, it's all the same.

The only real limit to the number of transactions that's currently in place is the maximum size of each block, but there are plans to increase this and so far there's not enough activity yet to hit this maximum other than in exceptional spikes.

edit:

I think this side-discussion is irrelevant to the original question. It's obvious the answer is "No" - you cannot get below 10 seconds. This has very serious practical implications for the deployment of Bitcoin at a global scale.

You can get below 10 seconds when you accept 0-confirmation transactions. For everyday purchases, this is perfectly fine as it is impractical and uneconomic for an attacker to try and profit from double spending those. Payment processors such as BitPay and Coinbase already accept 0-conf transactions and most merchants that accept Bitcoin-payments use one of those two processors.

For very large payments, you will have to wait for one or more confirmations, but these payments are almost always for things that are not delivered instantly (cars, houses, etc...).

[TookDk]

It's obvious the answer is "No"

Are you trolling?

The transaction time is almost instant, as gmaxwell pointed out.

[Eamorr]

If the coffee shop worker knows the guy in the coffee shop, everything is fine.

You cannot run a railway station coffee stand when you don't know 95% of your customers.

Consumer to retailer transaction via credit card is not an anonymous transaction so you're not comparing like with like.

I think the answer to question 2 is "No". In the context of transaction time, both cash and plastic are superior to Bitcoin. Though I'm happy to go through the logic of how it could be otherwise.

The cash and credit card is not superior (imo).
You have the chance of false bills and credit card fraud.

There is no such things as a fake bitcoin.

I don't want to get into a trust discussion. The plastic facilitates a trust relationship.

The reality is that Bitcoin simply cannot compete with cash or plastic when it comes to transaction time. Maybe you can bolt on a trust/insurance service (i.e. hack the Bitcoin protocol), but even then I don't see how that would work without both parties identifying each other. Cash wins.

The answer to your question (2) is "yes", you have unfortunate misunderstood how bitcoin works.

Cash has obvious problems, to mention a few:
1. You have to trust the government which issue them.
2. False money in circulations.
3. Personal safety risk when carry cash.
4. Biological hazzard, bacterial and virus.
5. Difficult to use cross border.
6. Not feasible for international trades.
7. Not convenient for large trades.
8.
9.
10.
11.

I didn't mention cash in question 2. Yet now I "have unfortunate [sic.] misunderstood how bitcoin works".

Why are you too proud to admit that the Bitcoin micropayment system is inferior to cash (in terms of time to confirmation of the transaction)?