Quote from: franky1 on September 06, 2018, 05:48:56 AM

Quote from: Photographer on August 30, 2018, 10:34:16 AM

I think that everyone here has a bias in favor of Bitcoin which makes them blind towards reality. Guys, all top scientists are talking about how we should reduce carbon footprint since we are facing a catastrophic global warming process. Bitcoin's network is already adding 1% of total electricity consumption to the echosystem so that we can gamble it on exchanges. I point to everyone's attention that even though Bitcoin swallows 1% of the world's energy it still cannot be used to pay for 99.999+% of the world's products.

1%,,, did you do the math...
average home uses 0.3kwh
1.2bill homes
=4,246,575,342kw/h (~4.25billion)

14nm asics are 14 terra
hashrate this week is 50,000,000 terra
=3,571,428 asics
each asic is 1.3 kwh
=4,642,857kw/h (~4.6million)

bitcoin uses 0.109% using 14nm rigs

now with 7nm
50 exa with 28terrahash rigs =
1,785,714 asics
each asic is 0.8kw/h
=1,428,571kw/h (~1.23mill)

bitcoin uses 0.0289% using 7nm rigs

yep we are somewhere in the area of between 0.029%-0.11% no where near 1%
and as i said the 0.029% is the next gen electric usage at this weeks hashrate. so the electric per hash is going down.

now imagine how much electric would be wasted if we stuck with GPU.. but the hashrate was still 50exahash
ill give you a hint. it would be 1177% of household electric

..
back 5 years ago yea the hashrate was 250000x lower.. but the kw per hash was higher using GPU
..

anyway over all we are at 0.1% household use if we use the old ASIC measure

and if we transition to 7nm rigs. we could go upto a hashrate of over 150exa and still be at 0.1% household electric.

this means we can go to 1500exa and finally get to the 1% of household electric this topic is at.

summary:
so give it a while. we are not near a 1% household electric barrier yet.. but pencil in 1500exa into your hashrate calender, then the OP can repost and finally be right

Thanks for this calculation. It was indeed sounding strange such an enormous figure. Your estimate is much more reasonable. However, so some extent the problem remains, even though not that big.