Slashdot Mirror
Estimates of Bitcoin's Soaring Energy Use Are Likely Overstating the Electric Power Required To Mine the Cryptocurrency (cnbc.com)
From a report: The computer process that generates each coin is said to be on pace to require more electricity than the United States consumes in a year. This bitcoin "mining" allegedly consumes more power than most countries use each year, and its electricity usage is roughly equivalent to Bulgaria's consumption. But here's another thing you might want to know: All of that analysis is based on a single estimate of bitcoin's power consumption that is highly questionable, according to some long-time energy and IT researchers. Despite their skepticism, this power-consumption estimate from the website Digiconomist has quickly been accepted as gospel by many journalists, research analysts and even billionaire investors. That model is also the basis for forecasts of bitcoin's future energy use that remind some experts of wild projections about internet data traffic in the mid-1990s that contributed back then to companies spending far too much for capacity they would eventually not need. "Doing these wild extrapolations can have real-world consequences," said Jonathan Koomey, a Stanford University lecturer who pioneered studies of electricity usage from IT equipment and helped debunk faulty forecasts in the 1990s. "I would not bet anything on the bitcoin thing driving total electricity demand. It is a tiny, tiny part of all data center electricity use."
It's free money and anyone who says different is a rube. I just mortgaged my house and pulled my kid out of college so I could use his tuition to buy more Bitcoins!
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
2) Bitcoin miners are co-locating at hydro plants to get cheap energy.
case China and Russia: https://medium.com/@evawxiao/c...
"China has an enormous surplus of electricity that can be harnessed for mining. In 2016, for instance, overcapacity from hydropower stations in Sichuan and Yunnan amounted to a whopping 45.6 terawatt hours. To put that into perspective, the entire US generated 4,100 terawatt hours of electricity in the same year.* By partnering with these power stations, cryptocurrency miners get access to discounted electricity rates in exchange for a cut of the mining revenue.
Chinese miners aren’t the only ones capitalizing on surplus electricity either. A Russian company co-founded by Putin’s internet advisor is doing the same thing to drive down electricity costs, though Russia only has around 20 gigawatts of excess power to funnel into mining."
case Iceland: https://btcmanager.com/gmo-int...
"Japan-based GMO Internet, an internet and technology conglomerate, has officially kicked off its cryptocurrency mining operation. The company has not disclosed the exact location of the new mine but acknowledged that it is based somewhere in Northern Europe. [...]
The publicly listed firm hinted that as of today, the mine is drawing all its electricity from hydropower and geothermal sources."
As green as it gets.
(Also, energy usage and transaction volume are not correlated. Extrapolating Bitcoin's energy usage into the future is highly questionable to start with)
it's in my head
Climate 'science', for example, needs to face far more objective scrutiny than it currently does.
Keep your hands over your ears and go LALALALALALALAL!
PS: climate science has plenty of large corporations busy trying to prove it wrong (and failing)
No sig today...
Current bitcoin hashrate is about 16E18 hashes per second for the network. Typical ASIC mining rigs do something like 1 gigahash/s for about 0.25 watts (some of the newer ones do a gigahash/s for under 0.1 watt). Do the basic math, that's about 4 gigawatts to power bitcoin currently. Yeah, that's a lot, about 3.5 nuke plants, and is enough power for some small countries like Denmark or Ireland or Cuba, at about 35ish TWhr per year. But that is a far cry from the end of the world, which uses about 22,000 TWhr/year. So bitcoin is on the order of 0.15% of the world power consumption. Given that virtually all this power is used by customized mining rigs, and there are only like 3 places that produce those, the growth rate of power consumption is heavily limited by what those companies can produce, even if the $ was there to drive it as fast as they could ramp up. Its taken about 4 years of ASIC production to get to this point (and 8ish years of bitcoin existence overall). It is disappointing that a forum with supposedly technically skilled people is so chicken little about this whole thing. Is it a lot? On tis own yeah, but not really in the whole scheme of things, and it is evolving so slowly that its not like everyone is going to wake up tomorrow and it will be taking up 50% of all the power produced in the world. Keep an eye on it but stop being so fucking alarmist about it.
You have two theories. The first one you present in your first sentence. The second one you present in your last sentence. When we apply the scientific method properly we have to consider both of your theories to be incorrect until one or both have been proven to be correct. We don't just 'conclude' one to be correct. We require sufficient evidence before we come to any conclusion.
These "Democrats"?
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Central planning sucks at anticipating demand / huge differences between rainy season and dry season / China is big and the distances to other regions that would need the energy is too great
Pick one, two or three :)
it's in my head
This question seems interesting so I thought I'd do a back-of-the-envelope number myself.
blockchain.info estimates the total hashing power of the bitcoin network at 14,000,000 TH/s. An antminer s9 can do 14 TH/s. Therefore the bitcoin network computing power could be approximated by 1 million antminer s9s. An antminer s9 draws 1372 watts. So if all bitcoin hashing was done by antminer s9s, we'd need 1,372,000,000 watts, or 1.4 gigawatts.
Not everyone is using the s9; some people are still using the s7, some are using ones by other manufacturers. The s9 is very popular however. Let's assume the average efficiency in hash power per watt is 30% that of the antminer s9. That gets us up to 4.6 gigawatts.
I feel good about not using a number smaller than 30% because there is a strong disincentive not to use inefficient hardware. The while I'm sure there is old hardware still hashing, the capacity of the network skews new. Looking at blockchain.info again, we see that half the capacity of the network came online within the last 5 months, so that'll certainly be newer hardware.
The estimate that TFA says is to high is 36 gigawatts, almost 8 times higher than my estimate. So I'll tentatively endorse TFA's view, dependent on the accuracy of blockchain.info's numbers.
Otherwise, the US could face a Bitcoin mine shaft gap . . .
Wow. For some reason I just got a woodie. Tell me about Lenstra elliptic curve factorization, differential encoding and little endian nonces.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I mine crypto currencies during the year when it is cold outside. While my electricity bill has gone up, my natural gas bill has gone down. So for cases where the waste heat is useful, should the energy consumption be treated the same?
The source of the electricity matters too (without taking pollution into account). If the power plant you get electricity from releases as much heat energy as it produces electricity, it's far from zero sum.
You obviously know nothing about science. Rarely can a theory be PROVEN correct. It's far easier to prove a theory is incorrect.
You could run test after test after test on a theory, have all the tests come up aces, and then one person could run a slightly different test and prove you were full of horseshit the whole time.
By contrast, you could come up with a theory, run a test, and have that test disprove your theory on the very first go.
Take gravity, we have a pretty good idea of what causes it, but it hasn't (and probably never will be) PROVEN. We can only approach the theory with greater and greater levels of certainty. 80%, 90%, 99.1%, 99.2%, etc.... But at any time, someone COULD come along and shoot everything down with a test that proves our current ideas wrong.
You could easily just make the hashing requirements gentle and still verify the chain.
At one point the hashing requirements were gentle, but people put more an more research and investment into doing it efficiently so the difficulty rose, so they put more effort into doing it better, and the cycle perpetuated. The original white paper envisioned mining to be done by individuals, but as it turns out the particular algorithm BTC is based on happens to be possible for dedicated ASICs to process thousands of times faster than a CPU or even GPU can. Frankly even if the algorithms in use were such that only CPU mining was possible, you still need to provide enough incentive for people to mine or you risk a dedicated adversary destabilizing the network with a 51% attack.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
There are a shit-load more idle chargers than there will ever be mining rigs.
A mining "rig" is a useless metric, because they vary wildly in size.
A popular miner is the Antminer S9, running at 0.1 Joule/GH. Current hashrate is 13 million TH/sec, so about 1.3 Gigawatts, plus overhead for power supplies and cooling. An idle charger uses less than 1 W, so we're talking about the equivalent of maybe 2-3 billion idle chargers.
Please try to act like a mature, intelligent adult in discussions here. When it comes to science, you don't prove the negative. That is, you prove that a theory is correct. You don't prove that a theory is incorrect.
Science is about both things. Finding out what doesn't happen tells us more about what does happen, by helping us eliminate possibilities.
Climate 'scientists' have not yet proven their theories to be correct.
That, however, is a complete lie.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Confusing incredulity with inflammatory rhetoric because someone else has a completely backwards notion of the scientific method: priceless.