Cryptocoin?

[AndyH]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/winklevoss ... lionaires/

Indeed, bitcoin's growth is extraordinary, with a market capitalization that exceeds $191 billion, according to Coinmarketcap. Among blue-chip stocks now valued less than that are iconic burger chain McDonald's (MCD) at $138 billion), investment bank Morgan Stanley (MS) at $95 billion and retailer Target (TGT) at $34 billion. Bolivia's GDP last year was $79 billion.

What's amazing about this growth is that BTC's still in the inflationary stage as new coins are added to the system with every solved block. We're down to 12.5 BTC per block now after the 3rd halving. Once the entire 210,000,000 coins are released, the deflationary stage begins. There are somewhat educated guesses that the price of 1 BTC could approach $100,000 in 4-6 years. Hang on tight!

[WetEV]

Electricity consumed per transaction (KWh) 250.00

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Bitcoin has a serious energy transaction cost problem.

[AndyH]

The energy cost for BTC is a result of human greed, not a fundamental energy requirement for crypto. Here are two examples of why it's important to continue to develop and evolve the tech that began with BTC:

https://rmi.org/news/beyond-bitcoin-blo ... e-emerges/
http://energyweb.org/

This topic has wider relevance. Why? (a) Blockchains are not limited to digital currencies; (b) not all blockchains are created equal (there are many ways to design, govern, and operate a network, including how energy-intensive they are); and (c) Blockchain technology could actually accelerate—not hinder—environmental and energy goals.

At Energy Web Foundation (EWF)—a partnership between Rocky Mountain Institute and Grid Singularity, a blockchain technology developer—we’re building an energy-efficient blockchain to support applications that unlock new opportunities for renewable energy and distributed energy resources. In other words, we’re developing an energy-lean blockchain foundation specifically for the energy industry that can also accelerate grid decarbonization.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/busi ... ading.html

The project is still in its early stages — it has just 50 participants thus far — but its implications could be far reaching. The idea is to create a kind of virtual, peer-to-peer energy trading system built on blockchain, the database technology that underlies cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin.

The ability to complete secure transactions and create a business based on energy sharing would allow participants to bypass the electric company energy supply and ultimately build a microgrid with energy generation and storage components that could function on their own, even during broad power failures.

[AndyH]

And here's why the energy thing is a red herring.

Source: Climatestate http://climatestate.com/2018/01/15/ener ... ng-system/

The highest estimates for Bitcoins annual terawatt hours consumption is 28.67. This means, more than 3 times more efficient than a very conservative calculation of the cost of the global banking system.

Point: Bitcoin.

[Nubo]

And here's why the energy thing is a red herring.

Source: Climatestate http://climatestate.com/2018/01/15/ener ... ng-system/

The highest estimates for Bitcoins annual terawatt hours consumption is 28.67. This means, more than 3 times more efficient than a very conservative calculation of the cost of the global banking system.

Point: Bitcoin.

All those terawatt hours haven't reduced the consumption of the global banking system; they are additive. And "efficiency" is a misnomer. On a per-transaction basis bitcoin cost is horrendous.

[AndyH]

And here's why the energy thing is a red herring.

Source: Climatestate http://climatestate.com/2018/01/15/ener ... ng-system/

The highest estimates for Bitcoins annual terawatt hours consumption is 28.67. This means, more than 3 times more efficient than a very conservative calculation of the cost of the global banking system.

Point: Bitcoin.

All those terawatt hours haven't reduced the consumption of the global banking system; they are additive. And "efficiency" is a misnomer. On a per-transaction basis bitcoin cost is horrendous.

got a source for your transaction level numbers?

Also...note that BTC's still young and use is growing exponentially. There is a current transaction log-jam. There are also a number of potential fixes being tested in other coins. The network doesn't have to grow in order to handle more transactions - and that changes the per-transaction numbers significantly.

[WetEV]

China is well on the way to banning Bitcoin internally.

First banning exchanges. Then expel all the mining computers. Then update the Great Firewall to block all connections to mining computers.

Bitcoin needs an open Internet to operate. China's network is not open.

There would likely be exceptions for State Security, as Bitcoin can be useful to subvert democratic societies.

[Nubo]

And here's why the energy thing is a red herring.

Source: Climatestate http://climatestate.com/2018/01/15/ener ... ng-system/



Point: Bitcoin.

All those terawatt hours haven't reduced the consumption of the global banking system; they are additive. And "efficiency" is a misnomer. On a per-transaction basis bitcoin cost is horrendous.

got a source for your transaction level numbers?

Also...note that BTC's still young and use is growing exponentially. There is a current transaction log-jam. There are also a number of potential fixes being tested in other coins. The network doesn't have to grow in order to handle more transactions - and that changes the per-transaction numbers significantly.

My knowledge of transaction rates vs. infrastructure cost (including power) is proprietary; sorry I can't share. But I think anyone can do a reasonable thought experiment to consider the number of transactions by billions of people world-wide, compared to the amount of bit-coin commerce that is going on and consuming this alleged 1/3. Block-chain concepts will undoubtedly find their way into the global banking system, but I find dubious the idea that Bitcoin itself will supplant it. The terawatt-hours that have been spent to "mine" it might as well have gone into growing tulips.

[AndyH]

All those terawatt hours haven't reduced the consumption of the global banking system; they are additive. And "efficiency" is a misnomer. On a per-transaction basis bitcoin cost is horrendous.

got a source for your transaction level numbers?

Also...note that BTC's still young and use is growing exponentially. There is a current transaction log-jam. There are also a number of potential fixes being tested in other coins. The network doesn't have to grow in order to handle more transactions - and that changes the per-transaction numbers significantly.

My knowledge of transaction rates vs. infrastructure cost (including power) is proprietary; sorry I can't share. But I think anyone can do a reasonable thought experiment to consider the number of transactions by billions of people world-wide, compared to the amount of bit-coin commerce that is going on and consuming this alleged 1/3. Block-chain concepts will undoubtedly find their way into the global banking system, but I find dubious the idea that Bitcoin itself will supplant it. The terawatt-hours that have been spent to "mine" it might as well have gone into growing tulips.

Ah - mystery numbers and tulips. Gotcha.

Oh well, I guess the more than 1000 coin projects won't work, including the work being done by Kodak and Goldman. Had I sold my miners and bought tulips, I wouldn't have been able to put a 1/3 down payment on my car last week.

Y'all are too funny.

[Nubo]

Ah - mystery numbers and tulips. Gotcha.

Oh well, I guess the more than 1000 coin projects won't work, including the work being done by Kodak and Goldman. Had I sold my miners and bought tulips, I wouldn't have been able to put a 1/3 down payment on my car last week.

Y'all are too funny.

Andy I think that's a bit unfair considering I was responding to your story which consists largely of someone picking numbers out of thin air.

However, for those who must have internet sources:

https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

Compare to this chart based on US transactions:
source: https://www.frbsf.org/cash/files/FedNot ... m_DCPC.pdf

This should make it clear enough that Bitcoin is in the parts-per-million range when discussing transactions on a world scale. Is that worth terawatt-hours of electricity?

Congratulations on your cryptocoin profits. Fortunes were made in tulips as well.