Software developer, racing fan
565 stories
·
18 followers

Bitcoin Is Still Unsustainable

1 Comment and 3 Shares

Bitcoin is back in the spotlight these days thanks to some wild price movements and central bank meetings. The decentralized currency has recently been trading over its all-time high of $1200 on some exchanges. But the higher the price goes, the more it exacerbates bitcoin's dark side: shocking levels of electricity consumption.

In 2015, I wrote that bitcoin had a big sustainability problem. Back then, each bitcoin transaction represented roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day— approximately 5,000 times more energy-intensive than a credit card transaction. Since it's been two years, it's time for an update.

First, a caveat: it's impossible to know precisely how much electricity any given bitcoin transaction "consumes," but it's simple enough to estimate a plausible range of energy consumption for overall bitcoin mining. Mining secures transactions on the blockchain, a giant ledger of all completed transactions.

It's worth looking at estimates for a per-transaction energy cost because we can compare that cost to existing payment systems. It's also a more tangible way to represent value-for-electricity. Simply knowing that total bitcoin mining consumes x amount of energy is interesting, but it's better to discuss how many transactions we're actually getting for all that electricity spent.

Updated calculations with optimistic assumptions show that in a best-case hypothetical, each bitcoin transaction is backed by approximately 90 percent of an American household's daily average electricity consumption. So even though that's still about 3,994 times as energy-intensive as a credit card transaction, things could be getting better since 2015.

Unfortunately, it's more likely that things are getting worse. A new index has recently modeled potential energy costs per transaction as high as 94 kWh, or enough electricity to power 3.17 households for a day. To put it another way, that's almost enough energy to fully charge the battery of a Tesla Model S P100D, the world's quickest production car, and drive it over 300 miles.

How could one bitcoin transaction possibly use this much electricity? First, a bit of context about mining.

Bitcoin transactions are secured by computer "miners," which currently compete for a reward of brand-new bitcoins from the network (the block reward). The more computation power you deploy, the better your chance of getting the reward. So it's always rational for someone, somewhere, to add more computing power as long as the bitcoin sale price supports the capital and power costs.

As a general rule, if the price of bitcoin goes up, it becomes more economical to mine, no matter the efficiency of your equipment. Energy consumption should logically increase if the price goes up enough, despite mitigating factors.

The bitcoin network regularly increases the difficulty of mining to account for more mining capacity, so the current situation is akin to an arms race: miners must always add more (or more efficient) mining chips to their operations to compete with other miners for limited rewards. And miners are continuously becoming more efficient, doing more computation for less electricity.

But according to a paper from Adam Hayes at the New School, "this [difficulty] mechanism tends to counteract the downward [price] tendency caused by increasing energy efficiency" of mining equipment. So even as mining equipment improves, bitcoin's code itself supports the incentive to add more mining, requiring more electricity.

With that context in place, we can find a baseline estimate for bitcoin's energy usage overall, as well as per transaction. First, we need a few basic data points:

  • Bitcoin can handle a theoretical maximum of about 7 transactions per second as it's presently implemented. The average daily number of bitcoin transactions was 302,150 as of March 1, according to blockchain.info.
  • Next, we'll take a look at the bitcoin hashrate, which measures the actual computation power of the network. I use a weekly average to smooth out daily noise. As of March 1 this figure was 3.387 million terahashes/s).
  • We also know the power consumption of the most efficient miners on the market. Antminer and BitFury seem to be tied for the lead here, which is about .098 W/GH/s for an Antminer S9 (BitFury does have a 2x more efficient liquid-cooled datacenter, but this likely doesn't represent most mining).

To find a lower bound for total network energy consumption, multiply the miner power consumption per hash per second by the global hashrate per second. As of March 1, that made about 332 megawatts of constant draw. I don't think this sounds unreasonable, given that a bitcoin entrepreneur just announced plans for a new 130 megawatt mining facility in China.

Now, let's express that in a more relatable measure. If all bitcoin miners were running very efficient hardware, bitcoin would be consuming enough power to supply the daily needs of about 268,990 average American homes.

Since the weekly rolling average number of daily transactions was 302,150, each bitcoin transaction represented at least 26 kWh of electricity spent mining, or enough electricity to power 0.89 average American households for a day.

In 2015, that figure was 1.57. Miners have certainly become more efficient since then, performing much more computation for less power, and there are many more transactions per day. So, bitcoin is more sustainable now, right? Not necessarily.

For one thing, not all bitcoin miners are running the most efficient machines. In a post criticizing my 2015 estimate, engineer Marc Bevand assumed a global figure of .15 J/GH, which would add an instant ~50% to the per-transaction electricity consumption—up to 1.34 households' worth of daily electricity use. Nobody knows the true overall efficiency figure, and .15J/GH might be out of date, so I'll stick with more efficient equipment at 0.098 J/GH for my example.

More importantly, most bitcoin experts will tell you that the overall electricity consumption of bitcoin mining isn't mainly determined by miner efficiency. As Ittay Eyal, a Cornell University computer scientist and assistant director of the Initiative for Cryptocurrencies and Contracts, told me via email, "bitcoin's energy usage is a function of the currency's exchange rate and the block reward." In other words, if the price goes up enough, miners will add whatever computing power they can afford to profitably capture mining rewards.

Enter the Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (BECI), a real-time modelling tool from Alex de Vries of Digiconomist. The BECI gathers daily figures and uses a reasonable set of assumptions to estimate the economically viable amount of electricity that the bitcoin network could consume while still covering miners' electricity costs.

Most of the data collection for Digiconomist's index is automated, and the output figures are recalculated daily. As the price drops or rises, so should the estimated power consumption of the bitcoin network.

I asked de Vries what sets his estimates apart from the kind of simple calculations I've done above. He noted that while an estimate like mine is useful as a lower bound, economic incentives will drive miners to eventually approach a break-even point where the bitcoin price equals the marginal cost to produce an additional bitcoin. This is in line with Hayes's 2015 paper, "A cost of production model for bitcoin." So his model may not always predict the current energy consumption, but in the long run it should provide a decent average.

"At worst (during very big price increases) my index is predicting energy consumption of the
Bitcoin network two months from now," after additional mining machines have either been delivered or returned into service, he wrote.

To wit, De Vries noted that my optimistic power consumption figures were likely too low because some older, less efficient mining equipment could turn a profit today, especially with access to cheap electricity.

"People have bought machines like the Antminer S5+ (at 0.44 W/GH/s still close to being profitable at 6 cents per KW/h) and many more before the newest became available, so there's a need to account for these and the constant stage of transition (rat race for more efficiency) the network is in," he said. "An economic measure then makes a lot more sense."

Since he first published the model, De Vries has adjusted its parameters to provide more generous assumptions. His figures, he says, now account for things like barriers to entry in bitcoin mining, capital expenditures, lag times, and variable electric costs. Even so, the BECI's average electricity cost of a single bitcoin transaction currently sits at 94 kWh, over three times my optimistic assumption of 26 kWh.

Critics could likely still find a few bones to pick with De Vries's index, but its fundamental value doesn't come from perfect, impossible accuracy. Rather, it gives us a ballpark estimate of bitcoin's energy consumption according to basic economic theory.

Between my optimistic lower-bound estimate, and the BECI, we're still left with a staggering amount of electricity embodied in each bitcoin transaction—anywhere from 26 to 100+ kWh, or enough to power 0.9 to 3.6 US households for a day. To repeat, this is thousands of times more energy-intensive than an estimate for a credit card transaction.

Even if 100 percent of bitcoin mining was powered by wind and solar sources, the fact remains that this activity is displacing other uses of electricity that might be more energy-efficient. With a lot less electricity, a Visa datacenter can power thousands of times more transactions per second. Are bitcoin transactions really powering economic activity thousands of times more valuable? I doubt it, and I say this as no great friend of Visa.

Critics could even argue that a number of bitcoin transactions are facilitating unproductive activity. For darkweb weapons-dealing (nasty but uncommon), ransomware payments (a serious problem), and very high-fee transactions, the value-for-electricity may be downright negative.

There may be hope for the future, however. It's important to keep in mind that while bitcoin transactions are secured by mining, the total amount of mining isn't related to the number of possible transactions. So projects like Teechan show initial promise as a way to massively increase the number of bitcoin transactions per second, as do "payment channels" like the Lightning Network. This would make bitcoin able to perform more useful transactions without requiring additional electricity, which is quantifiably good. Both of these, though, involve relinquishing some of the transparency central to bitcoin.

Whether scaling improvements will be adopted by the majority of users also remains to be seen. Bitcoin's lack of centralized governance is a feature, but it's also a bug. Ideological blocksize battles continue and diverging opinions have split the userbase into various interest groups.

Another environmental positive is the ever-declining block reward. Bitcoin's code dictates that miners will eventually earn more from transaction fees than they do from the regular creation of new bitcoins (supply is capped at 21M BTC). It's doubtful that a future fee market would support the ludicrous energy costs per transaction we see today.

In absolute terms, bitcoin's electricity consumption is still small potatoes: De Vries' index estimates it at 0.05 percent of world energy consumption as of March 1, or about as much as the country of Paraguay. Generously, it could even be a third of that figure.

But the estimated energy cost per transaction, at any end of the range, is still staggering by modern standards. In a future where carbon prices and climate change are almost guaranteed, that's something that should greatly concern bitcoin users, programmers, and advocates.



Read the whole story
jepler
21 days ago
reply
bitcoin CAN'T stop burning approximately as much electricity as miners make from (block reward + transaction fees). Check my math, but the block reward is 12.5BTC/block, there are about 144 blocks per day, and bitcoin is trading at $1200, so that means it is ECONOMICAL for miners to burn about $2,000,000 (two million) dollars worth of electricity per day in their bitcoin rigs. It's perverse. Ignoring the fact that the majority of the mining is being done in plces with cheaper electricity (from more polluting sources), it's somewhere around 7-8x as much electricity as all the households in my home town of ~250k people use.
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
vitormazzi
20 days ago
reply
Brasil
Share this story
Delete

Princeton’s “Muggle Studies 101” Exhibit Deeply Misunderstands Bagels

3 Shares

Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library

The Cotsen Children’s Library at Princeton University had a fun to-do this week called Wand Works, a Harry Potter-themed celebration where the kids could paint their own wands and receive magical books and sundry. But one of their exhibits stood out as something you would expect to see in a Hogwarts classroom or perhaps a wizarding museum: Muggle Studies 101.

Created by Princeton sophmore Téa Wimer (who happens to be studying anthropology and creative writing), the misunderstood Muggle artifacts each have descriptions attached that give us a window into how the wizarding worlds sees non-magical instruments. Here are a few hilarious examples from the exhibit:

Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library Téa Wimer, Muggle Studies 101, Cotsen Children's Library

Wimer found the items at a thrift store and enjoyed assigning new meanings to each one:

I think one of the coolest things about this process was that my developing skills as an ethnographer and anthropologist met with my creative side. I’ve always been looking for ways that those two (seemingly separate) parts of my interests can intersect, and even if this seems a bit “silly,” I really enjoyed taking a previously known object and regarding it as an anthropologist might look at an unknown cultural rite or artifact and creatively thinking up a way that a Muggle might use the given object.

I also had to think of myself as a different character sometimes too, as a wizard who is genuinely baffled by Muggles and their weird ways. I think that my child-like curiosity and imagination has never really left me, and that was also a huge plus as the Curator of Muggle Artifacts.

You can find the rest of the exhibit, as well as a Q&A with Wimer on the project over at Pop Goes the Page, the Cotsen Children’s Library blog!

Read the whole story
vitormazzi
21 days ago
reply
Brasil
luizirber
21 days ago
reply
Davis, CA
Share this story
Delete

Listening

4 Comments and 21 Shares
Sure, you could just ask, but this also takes care of the host gift thing.
Read the whole story
vitormazzi
21 days ago
reply
Brasil
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
JayM
22 days ago
reply
Hahaha
Atlanta, GA
sdevore
23 days ago
reply
Alexa, play some funky music
Tucson, AZ
Covarr
23 days ago
reply
Alexa, set an alarm for 1 am every day.
Moses Lake, WA
alt_text_bot
23 days ago
reply
Sure, you could just ask, but this also takes care of the host gift thing.

The Council of Elrond

3 Comments and 20 Shares






On second thought, maybe I'll just use the ring real quick to put down this communist revolution. In fact, maybe I should work with Sauron to stamp out communism everywhere...
Read the whole story
jepler
23 days ago
reply
chomsky makes some good points
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
vitormazzi
22 days ago
reply
Brasil
popular
22 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
2 public comments
satadru
22 days ago
reply
<3
New York, NY
tante
23 days ago
reply
The Council of Elrond (with Foucault, Chomsky and Fanon)
Oldenburg/Germany

Philosophy Jeopardy

3 Comments and 14 Shares






Things Schopenhauer hates:
Hegel
Noise
Life itself
Hegel
Everything else
Read the whole story
jepler
36 days ago
reply
Even just for the first three frames this one is a winner. But... Do you even get to participate in final jeopardy if your score is negative?
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
vitormazzi
36 days ago
reply
Brasil
popular
36 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
tante
36 days ago
reply
Philosophy Jeopardy
Oldenburg/Germany

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Anti-Theodicy

1 Comment and 13 Shares


Click here to go see the bonus panel!

Hovertext:
I think you could do an entirely novel exegesis of the Old Testament based around this premise.

New comic!
Today's News:

Hey! Geeks of London! Come see me, March 25th, at Imperial.

Read the whole story
popular
38 days ago
reply
vitormazzi
39 days ago
reply
Brasil
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
dmierkin
37 days ago
reply
:-)
Next Page of Stories