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 with real knowledge, to your story which consists largely of someone picking numbers out of thin air.
However, for those who must have internet sources:
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.
But not with computer equipment.
The number of transactions processed per day on the BTC blockchain (or any other of the hundreds of proof of work (POW) blockchains) is not tied to energy use. A POW blockchain can run happily with a couple of RaspberryPi single board PCs. As I noted, the current limit on transactions per day (actually transactions per block) is a technical one - and it's one that is being worked. There's a code change already deployed that, once activated, will significantly increase the number of transactions per block. This will return transaction costs (currently in a bit of a bubble from the log-jam) to normal and will cut the energy demand per transaction significantly.**
Also - BTC is only one currency. There are more than a thousand others - some using POW, some using proof of stake (POS) (which uses very little energy per mined block), some using hybrids of POW/POS, and some using other methods. BTC's the energy hog mainly because they're still in the inflationary stage of coin deployment - miners are paid 12.5 BTC for each block they verify and link onto the ledger. That payout continues to drop with each halving until it's zero. At that point, miners are only paid from transaction fees. The economics of this will reduce the number of miners on the network. We've already seen this play out as the price of the coin rises and falls.
Another factor is the progress in lower energy ASICS. Current mining equipment uses about 1/4 of the energy the last generation used. The combination of the changing economics of mining, plus the energy reduction in hardware evolution, and the work that allows handling more and more transactions are all working to take significant bites out of the energy per transaction numbers.
(Also...note that traditional banking has been forced to change to adapt to the pressure from crypto. A year ago it took more than 7 days to get an electronic transfer from a bank to my credit union. Now it's 1-2 days. Paypal transfers have become faster as well. If nothing else, the rise of crypto has broken traditional banking's monopoly and that's a good thing.)
**This is kind of important. What too many mainstream and/or financial industry authors do is take the current transaction rate and compare it with the amount of energy used, and then attempt to suggest that doubling the number of transactions requires using more energy. That is not at all accurate! These are two completely separate functions - they are completely independent of each other. Transactions require NO miners on the network. I can send money from my cell phone to someone in Greece within seconds and the only energy used is for our two cell phones and whatever network allows us to send a packet to the internet. Transactions go into a transaction pool and the money transfers. For a POW coin like BTC, what the miners do is gather as many transactions as they can out of the existing transaction pool, assemble them into a block, and add that block to their local ledger. Other miners check the block to validate it, then attach it to their local ledger. The mining process - assembling and error-checking the ledger - is what takes computer power. The network only requires a single computer to build blocks. I know this because I'm a co-dev on a small coin derived from BTC and we've torture tested the coin with tons of transactions. Yes - a lot of computers are on the network competing for block rewards as the maintain the security of the ledger - but the network doesn't need to consume anywhere near that much energy.
As for the overall value of the coin and the network: During the Greek financial crisis folks couldn't get fiat but they could get crypto. That's priceless.