1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
|
Return-Path: <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136])
by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928B0C013A
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804D42037E
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id QLglmol+HAjP
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27])
by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA86B2037B
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:00 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 03:17:48 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com;
s=protonmail; t=1612322277;
bh=68auJrOqPNjFGLb1PNmXm4bHFLS9qtUXjNZmDnAKGOg=;
h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From;
b=H40S2qe+qzwrAdV51AuujqsMqmv6wzt/MDPAh8rs83IeBBr0Kj9Gf3FUBdCruFg1V
6/ttesn7E41N86Zkw0jqRAbb5NeM0u1H6HGLw+Lqreri2owJAUAxhd6NLeJqc2SYkj
4QxmIDkFbzDJ8OSl7YArd61q4SQSQgmTW1aF5bPU=
To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <lkcl@lkcl.net>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <S5xSo0WU5O0xwb5Ot7jF8L011HUGf1oSpJSxtB93NY8qDZDwtCcNh9LSILMaZvT4uBh43jl638H7_bCz1WtSde34i0LnsNsXOyoJjuN5RIw=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAPweEDx4wH_PG8=wqLgM_+RfTQEUSGfax=SOkgTZhe1FagXF9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPweEDx4wH_PG8=wqLgM_+RfTQEUSGfax=SOkgTZhe1FagXF9g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libre/Open blockchain / cryptographic ASICs
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 03:18:02 -0000
Good morning again Luke,
> [my personal favourite is a focus on power-efficiency: battery-operated h=
and-held devices at or below 3.5 watts (thus not requiring thermal pipes or=
fans - which tend to break). i have to admit i am a little alarmed at the =
world-wide energy consumption of bitcoin: personally i would very much pref=
er to be involved in eco-conscious blockchain and crypto-currency products]=
.
If you mean miner power usage, then power efficiency will not reduce energy=
consumption.
Suppose you are a miner.
Suppose you have access to 1 watt of energy at a particular fixed cost of 1=
BTC per watt, and you have a current hardware that gives 1 Exahash for 1 w=
att of energy usage.
Suppose this 1 Exahash earns 2 BTC (and that is why you mine, you earn 1 BT=
C).
Now suppose there is a new technology where a hardware can give 1 Exohash f=
or only 0.5 watt of energy usage.
Your choices are:
* Buy only one unit, get 1 Exohash for 0.5 watt, thus getting 2.0 BTC while=
only paying 0.5 BTC in electricity fees for a net of 1.5 BTC.
* Buy two units, get 2 Exohash for 1.0 watt, thus getting 4.0 BTC while onl=
y paying 1.0 BTC in electricity fees for a net of 3.0 BTC.
What do you think your better choice is?
That assumes that difficulty adjustments do not occur.
If difficulty adjustments are put into consideration, then if everyone *els=
e* does the second choice, global mining hashrate doubles and the difficult=
y adjustment matches, and if you took the first choice, you would end up ea=
rning far less than 2.0 BTC after the difficulty adjustment.
Thus, any rational miner will just pack more miners in the same number of w=
atts rather than reduce their watt consumption.
There may be physical limits involved (only so many miners you can put in a=
n amount of space, or whatever other limits) but absent those, a rational m=
iner will not reduce their energy expenditure with higher-efficiency units,=
they will buy more units.
Thus, increasing power efficiency for mining does not reduce the amount of =
actual energy that will be consumed by Bitcoin mining.
If you are not referring to mining energy, then I think a computer running =
BitTorrent software 24/7 would consume about the same amount of energy as a=
fullnode running Bitcoin software 24/7, and I do not think the energy cons=
umed thus is actually particularly high relative to a lot of other things.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
|
