JimiQ84
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 04:21:59 PM |
|
I went through old friedcat posts and realized that last three updates in this thread were posted month apart. And now it's around one month since last one. I guess we should expect update any day now. (last posts were june 21st, july 23rd and august 22nd)
|
|
|
|
BitAddict
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1001
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 05:05:41 PM |
|
I went through old friedcat posts and realized that last three updates in this thread were posted month apart. And now it's around one month since last one. I guess we should expect update any day now. (last posts were june 21st, july 23rd and august 22nd)
I hope he also come with some news about future plan and gen2 chips.
|
|
|
|
lophie
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 05:41:03 PM |
|
Now where did I see a comparison that said that one major bank central office used probably more electricity than all the bitcoin mining in the world ...
That can't be true, I would be surprised OK lets try a wild estimate ![Smiley](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/smiley.gif) I use less than 1KW to do well over 100GH/s So lets go with 1KW for 100GH/s That's a way over-estimate for some of the high hashing devices and a way under-estimate for any of the old devices anyone is silly enough to keep mining with The bitcoin network is ~1PH/s So that's like 10,000KW That seem too high for a big bank's main data centre head office? If it is then say how about 10 of them? Certainly not too high for 10 of them. All guesses, but certainly makes that argument above seem far from certain. That's 10MW, iirc any one of the top 50 supercomputers uses at least 15MW. Just the ATM machines worldwide consumed several times the power of the Bitcoin network too. The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done. Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like under mining the system, pun intended ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif)
|
Will take me a while to climb up again, But where is a will, there is a way...
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 06:53:44 PM |
|
The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done. Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like under mining the system, pun intended ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Are you saying bitcoin ATMs are more energy efficient, or that bitcoin somehow eliminates the need for POS transactions?
|
|
|
|
tinus42
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 06:58:47 PM |
|
The argument that Bitcoin uses alot of energy is just a cheap shot that is easily refuted with comparison to the current systems. You don't even to go deep and comprehensive like the above just the ATM machines woeldwide and you are done. Believe it or not some people bring that up when we are talking bitcoin and they feel like under mining the system, pun intended ![Cheesy](https://bitcointalk.org/Smileys/default/cheesy.gif) Are you saying bitcoin ATMs are more energy efficient, or that bitcoin somehow eliminates the need for POS transactions? Banks have datacenters that use up more energy than the Bitcoin network. There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment, I read a rebuttal on one of the Bitcoin news sites (can't remember which) in which the author had calculated that the Bloomberg HQ building in New York used more energy than the entire Bitcoin network. It is really a red herring.
|
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:13:27 PM |
|
Banks have datacenters that use up more energy than the Bitcoin network. Banks offer services and volume that is just not comparable to the blockchain. Paypal is a much more direct comparison, even though they do a lot more than just processing transactions, and I just showed its using a comparable amount of energy. Except PP handles $100 billion worth of payments each year for 130 million users and does tons of other things too. That makes it very much more energy efficient. There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment, I read a rebuttal on one of the Bitcoin news sites (can't remember which) in which the author had calculated that the Bloomberg HQ building in New York used more energy than the entire Bitcoin network. It is really a red herring. The entire bitcoin network doesnt really represent a whole lot yet does it? Not compared to PP or banks, heck not even compared to Bloomberg. I wouldnt go as far as calling it a environmental threat, but its certainly not something to take pride in and if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency, it would get fairly ugly.
|
|
|
|
tinus42
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:18:27 PM |
|
The entire bitcoin network doesnt really represent a whole lot yet does it? Not compared to PP or banks, heck not even compared to Bloomberg. I wouldnt go as far as calling it a environmental threat, but its certainly not something to take pride in and if bitcoin ever becomes a mainstream currency, it would get fairly ugly.
I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
|
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:29:34 PM |
|
I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result in almost proportionally lower mining cost per TH, which will results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics.
|
|
|
|
tinus42
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:37:03 PM |
|
I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result lower mining cost per TH, which will results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics. If enough people take their miners offline because they don't make a profit difficulty will drop and then it will be (briefly) profitable to mine again. It then helps if you have the best energy efficiency. I guess when the limit is reached we will see cycles between high difficulty and low difficulty ad infinitum, until quantum computers come online and the arms race starts again.
|
|
|
|
Strange Vlad
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:42:01 PM |
|
There was an article on Bloomberg that called Bitcoin a realworld threat to the environment LOL that's Bloomberg for you.
|
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. 1CdVTkA288cd3m1jkdqPjUfhQ5ebei8gVT
|
|
|
Puppet
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1040
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 07:44:45 PM |
|
If enough people take their miners offline because they don't make a profit difficulty will drop and then it will be (briefly) profitable to mine again. It then helps if you have the best energy efficiency. I guess when the limit is reached we will see cycles between high difficulty and low difficulty ad infinitum, until quantum computers come online and the arms race starts again.
For an individual miner, power efficiency will soon make all the difference in the world. But for the network as a whole, it makes next to no difference. It would make zero difference if the hardware were free or its cost could be amortized over an infinite time. In that case, total mining revenue of the network == electricity cost of the network. That makes it pretty darn simple to predict and completely independant of efficiency per GH. Instead cost per KWH will nicely predict network speed. See link above for a chart of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Vycid
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
♫ the AM bear who cares ♫
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:23:14 PM |
|
If enough people take their miners offline because they don't make a profit difficulty will drop and then it will be (briefly) profitable to mine again. It then helps if you have the best energy efficiency. I guess when the limit is reached we will see cycles between high difficulty and low difficulty ad infinitum, until quantum computers come online and the arms race starts again.
For an individual miner, power efficiency will soon make all the difference in the world. But for the network as a whole, it makes next to no difference. It would make zero difference if the hardware were free or its cost could be amortized over an infinite time. In that case, total mining revenue of the network == electricity cost of the network. That makes it pretty darn simple to predict and completely independant of efficiency per GH. Instead cost per KWH will nicely predict network speed. See link above for a chart of that. Correct. And a high BTC/USD ratio means the total mining revenue (in USD) will be huge, and thus Bitcoin could suck down an absolutely disgusting amount of electricity. We need reversible computing and we need it soon.
|
|
|
|
Strange Vlad
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:25:32 PM |
|
I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result in almost proportionally lower mining cost per TH, which will results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics. The total energy consumption will be increased for a while, but it will be slowed down by growing power costs and shrinking rewards (no, the fees won't compensate for the block halvings). Even with current conditions, the potential maximum Bitcoin price (if market cap equals to that of USD in today's prices) is around $55,000, and that would (using that spreadsheet from a thread you linked) amount to only 60 Gigawatts. That's just a hair in today's global power consumption, and remember that in practice it'll be even lower than that. In other news, you are a troll.
|
Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. 1CdVTkA288cd3m1jkdqPjUfhQ5ebei8gVT
|
|
|
tinus42
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:29:53 PM |
|
Correct. And a high BTC/USD ratio means the total mining revenue (in USD) will be huge
Depends on what the USD will be worth. Ben Bernanke ceased tapering so QE will be back in full force. Sooner or later the dollar is going to tank bigtime.
|
|
|
|
Vycid
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
♫ the AM bear who cares ♫
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:32:25 PM |
|
Correct. And a high BTC/USD ratio means the total mining revenue (in USD) will be huge
Depends on what the USD will be worth. Ben Bernanke ceased tapering so QE will be back in full force. Sooner or later the dollar is going to tank bigtime. That trivially ignores the point. A more valuable bitcoin means more electricity can be bought with the bitcoins mined, and as profit margins tend toward zero almost all of the bitcoins mined WILL be spent on electricity.
|
|
|
|
tinus42
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:39:25 PM |
|
Correct. And a high BTC/USD ratio means the total mining revenue (in USD) will be huge
Depends on what the USD will be worth. Ben Bernanke ceased tapering so QE will be back in full force. Sooner or later the dollar is going to tank bigtime. That trivially ignores the point. A more valuable bitcoin means more electricity can be bought with the bitcoins mined, and as profit margins tend toward zero almost all of the bitcoins mined WILL be spent on electricity. But then everyone stops mining, difficulty drops and after a time it becomes profitable to mine again. Until everyone starts mining again and then the cycle repeats. There will be a limit to the amount of energy used. It won't rise "to the moon".
|
|
|
|
Vycid
Sr. Member
![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif) ![*](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/star.gif)
Offline
Activity: 336
Merit: 250
♫ the AM bear who cares ♫
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:45:37 PM |
|
I don't fear this will be a big issue by then, when Bitcoin becomes way more popular energy efficiency will become a more important factor and chips will have to become more energy efficient if the miners want to make a profit.
THats incorrect. It doesnt matter how energy efficient you make them, once these hardware prices have come down to something near marginal cost, electricity cost will be the overriding factor for miners, and the only real limit on network growth. More efficient chips would just result in almost proportionally lower mining cost per TH, which will results in a proportionally higher network speed, and thus rendering the higher efficiency pointless. Have a look here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=295270.0For a given BTC price and electricity cost, you can pretty much calculate how many megawatt bitcoin will consume. The only way to prevent that would be if hardware became more expensive somehow, so that the hardware investment would be a bigger brake. Not very likely with asics. The total energy consumption will be increased for a while, but it will be slowed down by growing power costs and shrinking rewards (no, the fees won't compensate for the block halvings). Even with current conditions, the potential maximum Bitcoin price (if market cap equals to that of USD in today's prices) is around $55,000, and that would (using that spreadsheet from a thread you linked) amount to only 60 Gigawatts. That's just a hair in today's global power consumption, and remember that in practice it'll be even lower than that. In other news, you are a troll. M2 money supply = $10,789B Bitcoin market cap = $1.576B 10786/1.576 ~ 6846x Today's price ~ $120 6846 * $120 = $821,543Assuming (incorrectly) that the only fiat that can be displaced is the US dollar. Times 1.36M a year, divided by avg $0.10/kW (It'd be much cheaper if you put the bitcoin hardware at the powerplant to avoid transmission losses) 1.36M * 821543 / .1 =1.117 e13 kW-h per year About 8766 hours a year 1.117 e13 / 8766 = 1274582135 kW = 1.274 TWThat is an ecological disaster. Not to mention dirty, nasty sources of electricity will be used in an attempt to bring down the cost per kW-h (which will result in an increase in the total watts needed for equilibrium).
|
|
|
|
ElectricMucus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1057
Marketing manager - GO MP
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 08:50:49 PM |
|
FYI in 2006 worldwide nuclear power generation was 0.93 TW and hydroelectric was 1.00 TW.
|
|
|
|
romerun
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
Bitcoin is new, makes sense to hodl.
|
![](https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/post/xx.gif) |
September 20, 2013, 09:28:46 PM |
|
what just happened to labcoin again
|
|
|
|
|