• abbenm@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 years ago

    I just wonder if bitcoin, in this respect, is a victim of its own proactive effort to publish energy costs.

    Suppose clash of clans, gmail, or the most watched viral video on facebook each had their own published estimates of energy use. Perhaps the most watched tiktok user is responsible for electricity usage on par the entire country of Croatia.

    If you could compartmentalize all the different major apps, major platforms, games, videos, specific accounts, etc and publish their power usage, my question would be where bitcoin ranks relative to those. Maybe it’s still uniquely bad, in which case, fair enough. And it certainly seems, given the numbers in the article (energy equivalent to 200k homes), that it’s uniquely bad. But I would like to see it in context of other usages.

    • glorpster@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 years ago

      Pretty sure Bitcoin is uniquely bad. The whole blockchain mechanisms revolves around solving ever more complex equations, which at this point requires dedicated high-powered hardware that sucks up tons of energy. Highly watched Youtubers might get lots of internet connections too, but those can and usually are somewhat optimized for efficiencym Bitcoin has exponentially growing inefficiency baked into its protocol.

    • Thann@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      with cryptos all the info you need to the the math is public. In the fiat-sector, everything is secret.