Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

One Bitcoin Transaction Now Uses As Much Energy As Your House In a Week (vice.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the magic-and-energy-intensive-internet-money dept.

Long-time Slashdot reader SlaveToTheGrind quotes Motherboard: Bitcoin's incredible price run to break over $7,000 this year has sent its overall electricity consumption soaring, as people worldwide bring more energy-hungry computers online to mine the digital currency. An index from cryptocurrency analyst Alex de Vries, aka Digiconomist, estimates that with prices the way they are now, it would be profitable for Bitcoin miners to burn through over 24 terawatt-hours of electricity annually as they compete to solve increasingly difficult cryptographic puzzles to "mine" more Bitcoins. That's about as much as Nigeria, a country of 186 million people, uses in a year.

This averages out to a shocking 215 kilowatt-hours (KWh) of juice used by miners for each Bitcoin transaction (there are currently about 300,000 transactions per day). Since the average American household consumes 901 KWh per month, each Bitcoin transfer represents enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week.

38 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Proof of work by thereitis · · Score: 2

    Is the ever-increasing proof-of-work requirement inherent with virtual currency (or even blockchain in general), or is there a more efficient way to make it work?

    1. Re:Proof of work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Proof of Stake requires almost no electricity at all, as the blockchain is determined by who puts up the largest stakes. The reason Proof of Stake isn't popular is because it's a "rich get richer, poor may as well not play" system, just like capitalism.

    2. Re:Proof of work by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 2

      There's also proof-of-stake.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    3. Re:Proof of work by m00sh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's proof of space proposal from the bit-torrent guy. https://www.coindesk.com/proof...

    4. Re:Proof of work by LordKronos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The reason Proof of Stake isn't popular is because it's a "rich get richer, poor may as well not play" system, just like capitalism.

      Because we know that with Bitcoin's Proof-of-Work system, it's the poor that can afford racks full of ASIC miners, right?

    5. Re:Proof of work by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because Bitcoin isn't ANYTHING like that.

      Oh wait.

      Exactly! BitCoin is the most ridiculous, sketchy snake oil that has ever been peddled. Now we find that it is extremely wasteful of energy as well. The day bubble bursts and everyone's money has evaporated into the cloud can't come too soon.

    6. Re:Proof of work by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean just-like-Trotsky-ites ... pimping the pauper with the words THEFT-AGENDA substituted for the word RICH.

      Or just like the fascists selling a middle class tax cut on the tired old theory that when we give the lion's share of that tax cut to the big corps and the 1% that it will all trickle down to the middle class, eventually. Yes, Trump's economic adviser, Gary Cohn, used the phrase trickle down in an interview just a couple of days ago.

      When the rich run the system, Trump's promises notwithstanding, they rig the system to make themselves even richer, so, yes, you could call it a theft agenda.

    7. Re:Proof of work by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 2

      If mining activity goes down an attack on the blockchain becomes cheaper.

    8. Re:Proof of work by Troed · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, the reason PoS isn't popular is because it's provably insecure.

      Contrary to a PoW-chain absent a +51% cartel, it’s mathematically proven that it is impossible to determine the “true” transaction history in a PoS blockchain without an additional source of trust. If a source of trust is always needed, a potential pandora’s box of attack and centralization scenarios is opened. This is a seed of truth behind the joke that Ethereum plans to use “proof of Vitalik”.

      (follow the links for the actual paper)

      https://medium.com/@tuurdemees...

      --
      it's in my head
    9. Re:Proof of work by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now we find that it is extremely wasteful of energy as well.

      “Now”? As if we didn’t know about this, all along?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    10. Re:Proof of work by 4wdloop · · Score: 2

      Agree but...that's different from digging gold how? (ok, gold has quite a good practical use but it's value is another thing)

      --
      4wdloop
  2. Bad Math by freeze128 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The energy spent *MINING* a bitcoin is not at all close to the energy spent *TRANSACTING* a bitcoin. Why is this even a metric?

    1. Re:Bad Math by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The energy spent *MINING* a bitcoin is not at all close to the energy spent *TRANSACTING* a bitcoin. Why is this even a metric?

      What metric should be used and why? The purpose of currency is to provide a means to conduct transactions, so in that sense it seems reasonable as the metric is tied to the purpose.

    2. Re:Bad Math by SlayerofGods · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really. Since bitcoins specifically ties mining activity to confirming transactions it's fair to link them. Now could it cost a lot less energy to confirm a transaction? Easily, but the design of bitcoin ensures that people will 'waste' as much energy as economically feasible to mine them and thus ensures the energy cost will remain high.
      This is epically true since bitcoins whole purpose is to conduct transactions so it would be fair to consider all the computers, network equipment, man hours, etc in the entire system as a direct cost of conducting those transactions.
      This wouldn't be any different then looking at all of Visas equipment and energy costs and dividing by the number of transactions it conducts per day to arrive at a 'cost' of swiping your credit card.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    3. Re:Bad Math by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      Not really. Since bitcoins specifically ties mining activity to confirming transactions it's fair to link them.

      If it is fair to link them then it is more than fair to ask that we at least get the most basic math, explanations, and conclusions right, which are points where this story (or title and summary, at the very least) fail miserably. If it is right to link them, then it is wrong to do so incorrectly and in the most inflammatory way possible.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    4. Re:Bad Math by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 2

      Mining is implicit in a Bitcoin transaction, by design.

      I think mining is explicit, rather than implicit. Bitcoin will have to evolve from its current form, eventually. As the number of coins is finite, it is probably unrealistic for mining to occur in perpetuity as it becomes exponentially less efficient to mine; it is easily conceivable that new mining technologies and the impetus to mine will not keep up forever. Fortunately, we are dealing with software that can be changed and networks that can adapt. So any discussion of the future of bitcoin must take into account the fact the code currently in use is not set in stone and need not be used unaltered forever.

      Just as we've already begun to see other uses of blockchain technology evolving, there is no reason that Bitcoin itself could not and will not evolve. The failure of Segwit2x is not a failure to evolve, it is something that will force a better solution to found. I'm not sure a continued reliance on mining to underpin the technology is sustainable, nor should we assume it is necessary.

      --
      This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
    5. Re: Bad Math by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      It's a place for propaganda from all sides. Always has been.

    6. Re:Bad Math by SlayerofGods · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes.
      Bitcoin has two contradictory goals. On the one hand it needs everyone to have the same information. The network couldn't work if I think I have 10 coins and you think I have 5. The way this classically works is you just have an authority keep track of it, the bank. You can simply ask the bank how much money you or anyone else has in the account.
      But bitcoin doesn't want a central authority so how can it keep track of who owns what and whose paid who? It uses a consensus based on whatever group has the most computing power. And they're rewarded for this work with a few new bitcoins and that reward is called 'mining'.
      So 'mining' is simply the act of gathering up all the transactions the network wants to do and 'signing' it with your massive computer power and pushing it out to the world. You can't have transactions with out mining.
      However bitcoin scales directly to the mining power on the network, so if everyone just closed up right and only you were left you could run all the transactions on a general purpose CPU if needed. So there is no reason it has to be wasteful, but the way it works is the greater the reward for mining the more it encourages people to waste electricity.

      --

      Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
    7. Re:Bad Math by Notabadguy · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its worse than a bad title and summary - it assumes a speculative future state as current fact.

      -It COULD be profitable for bitcoin miners to spend XYZ Terawatts of Electricity mining Bitcoins.
      -Assume XYZ Terawatts of power are currently being used to mine bitcoins.
      -Interchange creating something with trading something.

      TRADING BITCOINS COST XYZ TERAWATTS OF POWER OMG.

      Let's do that with a non-bitcoin related story.

      -Actors could use their status to take unfair advantage of women.
      -Bill Cosby raped like 76 women.
      -Bill Cosby is an actor, and can equally theoretically represent any other actor.

      HOLLYWOOD ACTORS ARE RAPING HUNDREDS OF WOMEN EACH!

    8. Re:Bad Math by mrbester · · Score: 2

      So long as they are consenting ounces, I don't see the need to publicise Troy's sex life, especially in bold text...

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  3. Irony by markdavis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is ironic that in a era where most people are talking about:

    * Energy efficiency
    * Energy independence
    * Emissions reduction
    * Green power production

    we are racing to consume [waste] tons of energy to produce "currency" which doesn't actually produce any goods or services. Imagine consuming megawatts of energy just to produce currency that could then be used to later buy things like, perhaps, more megawatts of energy. Seems insane.

    1. Re:Irony by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      So ... just like gold or diamond mining.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Irony by TheSunborn · · Score: 3

      You forgot to explain how "The whole premise that "one bitcoin transaction uses more power than your house" is blatantly wrong" wrong?

      It seems simply enough to calculate the energy requirements for mining a block. This block contains a fixed number of transactions, and if you divide the number of transactions with the energy requirements to mine the block, then you get the energy requirements for each transaction, which currently is about what a house uses in a week.

    3. Re:Irony by religionofpeas · · Score: 2

      Industry and science can now use synthetic diamonds. They are cheaper (especially the little ones used in saw blades) and have better quality. Industry use of gold is only 10% of the mined amount. We could stop gold mining, and the industry could survive on the already-mined gold for centuries.

    4. Re:Irony by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      Bingo! And that's why the cryptocurrencies are gaining strength ... they finally equate the relative value of the currency to the strength of the global marketplace, and the role of the Federal Reserve is replaced by the cooperative of miners.

      A thing can only be used as currency if it is expensive to replicate and its source can be controlled by a reliable producer. The US dollar is hard to replicate, and every few years the "proof of work" has to be increased to keep ahead of people who figure out how to replicate it. With cryptocurrencies, we have a new "proof of work" to show that the coin is authentic.

  4. Re:Most environmentally unfriendly currency ever by OldMugwump · · Score: 2

    Most progressives I know drive SUVs.

    --
    "Shoot, a fella could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas with all that stuff."
  5. Off-Topic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Since the average American household consumes 901 KWh per month, each Bitcoin transfer represents enough energy to run a comfortable house, and everything in it, for nearly a week.

    Would be 3-5 weeks for other western countries who actually insulate their houses, use modern appliances and lighting.

  6. I pay for my house energy usage in bitcoins by hxnwix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I pay my power bill using bitcoins. I noticed that I have to build out exponentially more bitcoin mining infrastructure every month, but I thought that was normal. I guess I should have realized something was amiss when we built the 60-acre data center. Anyhoo, the 3,600-acre data center will be sufficient, I am confident.

    1. Re:I pay for my house energy usage in bitcoins by powro79 · · Score: 2

      Same here but I built it under my house. I alternate floors of miners and floors of marijuana plants, just like every bitcoiner. Last time the cops came for the high electricity bill, they stopped at the first floor of miners they saw. Now 180 floors and counting!

  7. Re:Shocking energy usage in the us... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

    What are you guys doing? x_X

    You need to read Slashdot more often:

    https://yro.slashdot.org/story...

    That's what we're doing.

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
  8. Re:Most environmentally unfriendly currency ever by ScentCone · · Score: 2

    They aren't progressives.

    Sure they are. Progressives just aren't what you wish they were.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  9. Nothing theoretical about Bitcoin's insecurity by perpenso · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Contrary to a PoW-chain absent a +51% cartel

    In 2014 a single mining pool reached 50%.
    https://www.coindesk.com/51-at...

    As bitcoin mining in increasingly centralized on expensive specialized ASIC hardware, as individual/small miners increasingly host remotely (where they don't have physical control of ASICs) where electricity is inexpensive, bitcoin insecurity is increasing.

    Bitcoin was designed with the assumption of distributed mining. With many small players contributing to the blockchain, as in the early days when CPU and GPU mining was practical. That assumption of bitcoin's design has turned out to be false, bitcoin is vulnerable.

    1. Re: Nothing theoretical about Bitcoin's insecurity by perpenso · · Score: 2

      Even now the top 4 pools control over 50 percent. From a country point of view, miners from China control over 80%

      And its not like the government over there can exert undue influence over those commercial mining operations, operations largely dependent on government run hydroelectric projects offering very low rates.

    2. Re:Nothing theoretical about Bitcoin's insecurity by perpenso · · Score: 2

      The difference is that any "51% attack" (which in reality needs to be ~80% or so) is temporary with PoW. In PoS any catastrophic breakage in trust cannot be gotten back.

      How is a successful 51% attack upon bitcoin not going to damage trust? How is the fraud/damage going to be undone?

      The future is the blockchain. Bitcoin is just one of many users of the blockchain, bitcoin is as replaceable as other coins. It is not established, its use beyond speculators extremely rare. For the average consumer using bitcoin the switching cost from bitcoin to something else is very low.

  10. It's over 250 kWh per transaction now and growing by RobinH · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That 215 kWh per transaction number is out of date, since the power consumption is growing so rapidly. Last I saw, late this week, it was over 250 kWh per transaction. This is a ridiculous amount of electricity to consume per transaction. Sure, bitcoin is an interesting experiment, but the power consumption problem needs to get fixed. At some rough cost of $0.10 per kWh, that's creating a cost of $25 per transaction. Insane.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
  11. Re: MMORPG money brought to life. by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    Just because it is tangible and useful doesn't mean that it is valuable. Water is tangible and useful.

    I mentioned diamonds and gold because the price of those commodities is far higher than their intrinsic value.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  12. Re:you should be snuffed now by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

    No. This isn't stupidity. This is exactly the kind of optimization of resources that humans are extremely good at and that nature does through evolutionary trial-and-error.

  13. So... by BitztreamNotARealNam · · Score: 2

    How's life in the hypocrite lane?