Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 14, 2017, 11:28:59 AM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 12, 2017, 08:09:07 PM

Looks like the "cost of mining a coin" is a LOT less than "$1000 - $2000".

No i stand by my numbers

You can "stand by your numbers" as much as you want. It won't make them correct.

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 14, 2017, 11:28:59 AM

and your calculation did not deal with miners who did not win a coin

Yes. It did.

Perhaps you don't understand how proof-of-work works?

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 14, 2017, 11:28:59 AM

Quote

One factor that may help limit the increasing energy consumption is that if the price of bitcoin should drop drastically mining might become a losing proposition. Currently, at the average cost of $0.12 for electricity in the U.S, it costs $1,567.88 to mine one bitcoin. And at the lower cost of $0.04 available in some locations, the price to mine is just $522.62

See http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/technology/op-ed-bitcoin-mining-consuming-more-and-more-power/article/509257

Did you think I wouldn't bother clicking your link?

From that same article:

Quote

At least one critic finds Digiconomist estimates much too high. There is an extended critique here. The critic argues that the estimates inflate the energy use by bitcoin mining considerably: "The author of the Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index makes fundamentally flawed assumptions, causing it to demonstrably overestimate the electricity consumption of Bitcoin miners

Quote from: Anti-Cen on December 14, 2017, 11:28:59 AM

You will also find calculations for the estimated cost of each transaction using google (fixed search results)

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Learn math. Learn how Bitcoin works. Do the calculations yourself.

You'll find that there are a lot of false reports on the internet that make outrageous and demonstrably false claims about the amount of electricity and/or cost involved in mining.

Are you here to learn? Or are you just here to parrot nonsense that you've read without giving it any critical thought?

Quote from: 9kek on December 14, 2017, 03:33:19 PM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 12, 2017, 08:09:07 PM

If the public moves away, then the quantity of transactions will drop. If there are less transactions, then it won't cost as much (in transaction fees) to get your transaction confirmed. If it doesn't cost as much, then the public will choose to use Bitcoin. If the public chooses to use bitcoin, then the nuber of transactions will increase. If the number of transactions increases, then it will cost more (in transaction fees) to get your transaction confirmed. If it costs more to get your transaction confirmed, then the public will move away.

But this way, fewer people can use it. Isn't it better allowing more people to use bitcoin?

Perhaps Lightning Network will make that possible. The design of Bitcoin since 2010 was always going to limit the number of people that have direct access to the blockchain. This was explained to Satoshi when he added the 1 megabyte limit. He didn't care. He decided that it should be limited, and we are stuck with his decision now. If we don't like it, our only choice is to create an altcoin with a better solution.

Quote from: MoonJeina on December 14, 2017, 03:38:30 PM

This is the time where there are way many transactions then the number of mining pools to handle . I hope the team is working to build some more pools to divide the mining load .

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the number of transactions a mining pool can handle. Building more pools will not make any difference.

Bitcoin is designed to limit the number of transactions per block. That limit is exactly the same regardless of whether there is 1 person mining with 1 AntMiner S9 or if there are a billion people mining with a billion AntMiner S9 units each.

Bitcoin is also designed to limit the speed of blocks to an average of 10 minutes per block. That limit is exactly the same regardless of whether there is 1 person mining with 1 AntMiner S9 or if there are a billion people mining with a billion AntMiner S9 units each.

Quote from: jnano on December 14, 2017, 03:47:33 AM

Quote from: DannyHamilton on December 12, 2017, 03:04:17 PM

Check your math. You seem to have made an error in that calculation.
That electricity is being used for much more than just "confirming a single transaction".

Do you mean in the philosophical sense?

If the actual, it's not too far off. Rounding some numbers:

Current network hash rate = 13.4 EH/s
13.4 EH / 14 TH per S9 = 960K units
960K * 1.4 KWatt = 1.34 GWatt
Average block time = 1/6 hours
Average transactions per block = 3000

1.34 GWh / 6 / 3000 = 74 kWh.

I assume not everyone uses the S9, so let's add 25% to get 90 kWh/tx.

When a miner adds a block to the blockchain, it doesn't ONLY add 1 confirmation to the transactions in their block. It ALSO adds 1 confirmation to every transaction in the blockchain.

New transactions are only possible because the earlier transactions are immutable. The earlier transactions are only immutable because of the continuing proof-of-work process. This is why empty blocks are still valuable and useful. The electricity being used is sustaining an international permissionless trustless immutable decentralized record keeping system. It is securing every transaction that has ever happened, and making possible all future transactions that ever may happen.

So, if you want to use:
Average transactions per block = 3000

Then to be intellectually honest about it, at a minimum, you need to also use:
Total number of blocks in the blockchain: 499273 (as I'm typing this)

Therefore the electricity used should be divided by 3000 X 499273 and not just by 3000.