Bitcoin Energy Consumption Is Much More Efficient And Greener Than Today’s Banking System – Bitcoin News Mining

While bitcoin and a variety of digital currencies have increased in value, many critics have spread fear, uncertainty and skepticism (FUD) over the leverage of energy use-of-work (PoW) cryptocurrencies to generate new currency units. . Software engineer Stephen Diehl recently expressed his dissatisfaction over the environmental cost of bitcoin. However, supporters of cryptocurrency believe that Diehl failed to mention the amount of renewable energy consumed by a large number of mining facilities, alongside the irresistible cost to operate today’s banking system.

Bitcoin Energy Waste Debate is Errand Fool

The latest hot topic within the cryptocurrency industry is the topic of Bitcoin’s proof-of-work (PoW) energy usage, and whether or not the use is efficient. The talk was prompted by a number of articles published during the past year, alongside that of software engineer Stephen Diehl recent criticism of network power consumption.

Besides the fact that Diehl considers the crypto asset to be “a massive smoldering Chernobyl,” he also said that “the economics of bitcoin [is] a pyramid-shaped investment scheme underpinned by the collective fraud that value can do [be] created out of nothing by convincing bigger fools to buy it after you’re done. ”

Diehl’s criticism of Bitcoin’s energy consumption is fraught with obvious flaws, but neither does he realize how Satoshi’s cryptocurrency network is more energy efficient than most think. Diehl and many others also fail to recognize the cost to maintain today’s banking system, which includes a large number of tarrawats dedicated to servers, branches and automated teller machines.

Bitcoin Electricity Usage Index Discrepancies

Most consumption data derived from the BTC network is derived from the Cambridge Cambridge Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI). Interestingly, mainstream media analysts and reporters also point to bitcoin’s digiconomist.net energy consumption index. Unfortunately, there is a very large discrepancy in CBECI and digiconomist.net’s annual use of terawatt hour (TWh) data.

The digiconomist.net stats show that the BTC network captures 77.78 TWh, while CBECI indicates that the network is 111.08 TWh. That’s a huge variance (44% difference) when trying to estimate the network data usage of the crypto asset. And yet, these are the most common sources used by bitcoin callers who say that BTC’s electrical consumption is a ‘waste’ with no shame.

Furthermore, we do not even know how accurate CBECI data is because a member of the Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance (CAVC) team recently he explained to news.Bitcoin.com that the CBECI map is not current and will be updated in 2021. This has led to several reports indicating that China is grabbing 65% of the Bitcoin mining hashrate, which may be ubiquitous wrong. In July 2020, a hashrate report written by Bitooda said that China was gradually losing its concentration of bitcoin hashpower and the country fell to 50%.

It is far more likely, that the theoretical estimate of CBECI’s lower bound for BTC network energy consumption is more accurate. The lower bound theoretical estimate is approximately 4.6 gigawatts or 39.3 TWh annually on January 19, 2021. In addition, countless rebuttals and data points which shows that people who complain about Bitcoin’s energy usage are overreacting.

Studies show over 75% of cryptocurrency miners’ leverage renewable energy sources

For example, the anti-bitcoin environmentalists do not speculate that much of the PoW mining industry uses renewable energy sources such as hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal energy. There are numerous reports that show that over 70% of crypto miners use a mix of renewable energy to power facilities around the world. There are also prolific efforts dedicated to energy production as well.

The third Global Cryptoasset Benchmark 2020 Study by Cambridge University also indicates that 76% of digital miners use renewable power sources. Complementing this data is a report from Deutsche Bank Research, the Chinese National Energy Agency, Morgan Stanley, and Coinshares. The report from these four organizations highlights that “78% of Bitcoin’s electricity consumption comes from renewable sources.”

There are countless reminders and real-world examples of bitcoin miners using a much more efficient way of using electricity than all the financial systems on the planet. Two years ago, Bill Tai, an investor and board director of Bitfury, detailed that Satoshi is smiling because of the green energy consumption that bitcoin miners use today.

“It has been clear to me for many years now that Bitcoin mining and other ‘test-based’ cryptocurrencies are driving a positive change in the basic infrastructure of energy production – at an accelerating rate,” Tai explained . The investor is also chairman of the board of Hut8 and said the company had a “policy to be ‘green’ as we build.” Housing detailed that the most efficient sources of electrical power are not fossil fuel-based to scale, but Housing emphasized the marginal costs of water, solar and wind power.

Delivery Trucks, Servers, Branches, ATMs, and the Irresistible Cost of the Modern Banking System

Then there is ultimately the cost of the modern banking system, something that bitcoin gay people never account for when criticizing the crypto’s energy use. There are a large number of articles and statistics that indicate that the current banking system uses well over 140 TWh per year. In one study, Katrina Kelly-Pitou, a researcher who is “studying clean energy technology, specifically the transition towards decarbonising energy systems” says the energy conversation around bitcoin has been “oversimplified.”

In addition, the researcher emphasized that “Bitcoin’s energy consumption is not as bad as you think.” Hacker Noon contributor Carlos Domingo then called comparing bitcoin’s electrical usage with Visa as “absolute madness”.

Domingo said:

Stop complaining about Bitcoin and start complaining about Christmas lights.

Despite the fact that ‘Bitcoin Mining Cost Has Never Raised Really,’ Cancel Culture Pundits Want to ‘Criminalize Bitcoin’

This October, researchers Yo-Der Song and Tomaso Aste published a report highlighting that the cost of mining bitcoin has “never really increased.” In the paper, Aste and Song point out that the Bitcoin network uses a lot of energy, but the researchers still manage to estimate the “lower bound for the global cost of mining energy for a 10-year period between 2010 and 2020. ”

“Despite a 10 billion increase in acceleration activity and a 10 million fold increase in total energy consumption, we find that the cost in relation to transaction volume has not increased or decreased since 2010,” he notes r the paper.

The researchers add:

This is consistent with the perspective that in order to keep the Blockchain system safe from double spending attacks, the work test must cost a significant fraction of the value that can be transmitted through the network. We estimate this fraction to be around 1% in the Bitcoin network.

The bitcoin mining industry is clearly not as wasteful as the current banking system which is not only filled with servers, ATMs, and branches, but is also free from fraud and rampant manipulation. Despite this, members of the crowd who have woken up today and canceled culture want to “criminalize bitcoin,”Because it is alleged to be“ very damaging to the environment. ”As usual, these critics are filled with emotional judgment and weak signals of virtue, with very few facts to back them up.

What do you think of the recent criticism towards Bitcoin energy use? Let us know what you think of this topic in the comments section below.

Tags in this story

Bill of Housing, Bitcoin mining, BTC Mining, BTC Mining Rigs, Cambridge Center for Alternative Finance, CBECI, Coinshares, Banking System Cost, Deutsche Bank Research, digiconomist.net, electricity, Electricity, electricity usage, GW, Katrina Kelly-Pitou, Banking System Modern, PoW, Mining PoW, Renewable Energy, renewable energy, Satoshi, terawatts, TWh

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Twitter, Coinshares, digiconomist.net, CBECI, Medium,

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, nor a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Source