From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from silver.osuosl.org (smtp3.osuosl.org [140.211.166.136]) by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 928B0C013A for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 804D42037E for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:02 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org Received: from silver.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QLglmol+HAjP for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:01 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail4.protonmail.ch (mail4.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.27]) by silver.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA86B2037B for ; Wed, 3 Feb 2021 03:18:00 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 03:17:48 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail; t=1612322277; bh=68auJrOqPNjFGLb1PNmXm4bHFLS9qtUXjNZmDnAKGOg=; h=Date:To:From:Reply-To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=H40S2qe+qzwrAdV51AuujqsMqmv6wzt/MDPAh8rs83IeBBr0Kj9Gf3FUBdCruFg1V 6/ttesn7E41N86Zkw0jqRAbb5NeM0u1H6HGLw+Lqreri2owJAUAxhd6NLeJqc2SYkj 4QxmIDkFbzDJ8OSl7YArd61q4SQSQgmTW1aF5bPU= To: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton , Bitcoin Protocol Discussion From: ZmnSCPxj Reply-To: ZmnSCPxj Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Libre/Open blockchain / cryptographic ASICs X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 03:18:02 -0000 Good morning again Luke, > [my personal favourite is a focus on power-efficiency: battery-operated h= and-held devices at or below 3.5 watts (thus not requiring thermal pipes or= fans - which tend to break). i have to admit i am a little alarmed at the = world-wide energy consumption of bitcoin: personally i would very much pref= er to be involved in eco-conscious blockchain and crypto-currency products]= . If you mean miner power usage, then power efficiency will not reduce energy= consumption. Suppose you are a miner. Suppose you have access to 1 watt of energy at a particular fixed cost of 1= BTC per watt, and you have a current hardware that gives 1 Exahash for 1 w= att of energy usage. Suppose this 1 Exahash earns 2 BTC (and that is why you mine, you earn 1 BT= C). Now suppose there is a new technology where a hardware can give 1 Exohash f= or only 0.5 watt of energy usage. Your choices are: * Buy only one unit, get 1 Exohash for 0.5 watt, thus getting 2.0 BTC while= only paying 0.5 BTC in electricity fees for a net of 1.5 BTC. * Buy two units, get 2 Exohash for 1.0 watt, thus getting 4.0 BTC while onl= y paying 1.0 BTC in electricity fees for a net of 3.0 BTC. What do you think your better choice is? That assumes that difficulty adjustments do not occur. If difficulty adjustments are put into consideration, then if everyone *els= e* does the second choice, global mining hashrate doubles and the difficult= y adjustment matches, and if you took the first choice, you would end up ea= rning far less than 2.0 BTC after the difficulty adjustment. Thus, any rational miner will just pack more miners in the same number of w= atts rather than reduce their watt consumption. There may be physical limits involved (only so many miners you can put in a= n amount of space, or whatever other limits) but absent those, a rational m= iner will not reduce their energy expenditure with higher-efficiency units,= they will buy more units. Thus, increasing power efficiency for mining does not reduce the amount of = actual energy that will be consumed by Bitcoin mining. If you are not referring to mining energy, then I think a computer running = BitTorrent software 24/7 would consume about the same amount of energy as a= fullnode running Bitcoin software 24/7, and I do not think the energy cons= umed thus is actually particularly high relative to a lot of other things. Regards, ZmnSCPxj