Current hash rate: 261,900,382 GH/s
Number of transactions per day: 71,331
If we assume rather conservatively that 1GH/s = 1 watt on average, then this would mean 261,900,382W is being used to power the network. We can simplify this to 261,900 kW.
Some miners can do better than 1W per 1GH/s, but many if not most do worse (i.e. 2W per 1GH/s to 10W per 1GH/s).
Going by the figure of 0.527kg CO2 / kWh found on this page,
0.527kg CO2 x 261,900 kW x 24 hours = 3,312,511.2 kg CO2 per day
3,312,511.2 kg CO2 / 71,331 transactions = 46.44 kg CO2 per transaction
For comparison, even going by this Coindesk Article, an ATM produces daily 3.162kg in CO2 emissions.
0.25kwH x 0.527kg CO2 x 24 hours = 3.162kg/day.
That means that the carbon emission for one Bitcoin transaction is equivalent to about 15 ATMs processing perhaps hundreds or thousands of transactions in a day combined.
Right, there's a bunch of circlejerking happening in /Bitcoin right now so I think it's time to cut through the bullshit one way or another.
Country to send money to.
The biggest remittance markets are China, Indian and the Philippines.
I believe that since /Bitcoin often gives the Philippines as an example of successful Bitcoin remittance then it is the perfect country to use in our challenge.
Country to send money from.
According to this wikipedia article Malaysia and Canada have the biggest expat Filipino communities. 900,000 and 500,000.
So I think we should do the calculations based on both countries.
Most people are not paid in Bitcoin. This is a fact. So for our calculation you must start with fiat, and end in fiat. We're not doing these calculations based on future utility of Bitcoin (No, neo. I'm saying...), we're doing them on the current utility.
We will also be doing a bank to bank remittance, because that is nice an constant. We don't need to take into account pick up locations Bitcoin remittance allows and pick up locations normal remittance allows. They'll vary too much.
Time will also not be taken into account, as time doesn't actually matter when it comes to remittance. Now, Bitcoiners might shout about this particular rule but let me explain my logic behind this.
A foreign worker gets paid every Friday. They start the remittance process on the Friday and regardless of if it takes 0, 3, or 5 days their family back in their home country just needs to base their life around money coming in on remitters pay day + 0, 3, or 5 days. Time taken is of no real value when it comes to remittance. All that matters is that it consistently arrives on day x.
As such, any remittance services that take over 5 working days are to be ignored for the sake of this challenge.
The amount is going to be 25% of the average wage in each of the countries. This isn't extremely scientific because it doesn't particularly need to be, and the figures are hard to come by.
So 1826.75 MYR for Malaysia and 1,398 CAD for Canada.
Don't bother complaining about these, they're just examples.
Few more ground rules
- We're going to be going from bank/bank card to bank regardless, so we're not interested in banking fees on either side. They will be the same regardless of Bitcoin or WU (for example)
- It must be from local fiat to foreign fiat.. You can't palm off the conversion fee to the receivers bank to keep fees down.
- Any remittance service can be used, as long as Bitcoin is involved for people fighting the Bitcoin corner and Bitcoin isn't used for people fighting the WU (or similar) corner.
- You must go through the process and document all the fees for each. Fees to look out for are currency spreads, transaction fees on exchanges, etc
The average number of transactions per block right now is: 665 transactions
The average block size is 0.372731752748842mb.
That means the average transaction is 0.00056049887mb. Which means 1mb of transactions (the limit) is 1784 transactions
Assuming a 10 minute block (a whole other can of worms) that means there is 10*60 seconds.
1784/600 isn't 7. It's a 2.97.
Bitcoin at a technical level can not handle even 3 transactions per second.
On the transaction side: the Bitcoin community seems convinced that banks are ripping them off (which imo they are not), and that it can be fixed by applying some magicsauce over a transaction that is facilitated by banks regardless. So far in practice I haven't seen any evidence of the 'fast' 'cheap' and 'easy' transactions, like most recently with Mollie. They usually compare the fees of BTC>BTC transactions to the fees of Chase Mastercard > a fucking nomad in the Sahara (with consumer protection) to prove their point. The community also seems convinced that the entire world banks the way America does, not realizing that in Europe banking has been dirt cheap for years.
And the security... oh boy the security. Half the population can't manage to go without a virus for one year (not an actual statistic), and now you expect them to secure their coins? People are dumb as shit, and software is always one step behind the exploits. We could of course create Bitcoin banks, but then there isn't much left of the original idea.
On the 'intrinsic value' side: what the hell is wrong with people. If the underlying product is no good in any aspect, why is it worth much? Right now (that's like 5 years after introduction mind you) BTC is used in 3 types of transactions: Silk Road, SatoshiDice & extremely questionable transactions. It does its job well in that aspect, and that's all it will ever be. The community just turned the technology into a giant ponzi, and they don't care as long as they get paid. The people actually doing business in Bitcoin probably don't care about the price that much.
That's just an excuse butters use for the price going down.
There's no real difference between selling bitcoin for fiat and exchanging bitcoin for goods and services. Both are a form of sale of bitcoin, an expression of preference for something other than bitcoin.
If on balance, there's more flow of bitcoin into fiat, goods or services than there is a corresponding opposing flow, then it is simply the market expressing the view that bitcoin is overvalued. Therefore, the reduction in the value of bitcoin (as valued in fiat) is a sincere expression of the market's view of what the correct price for bitcoin is.
Think of an example: A true believer has 20 BTC. He exchanges 10 BTC with Dell for a whizzy server. Dell (or another intermediary) sell the 10 BTC at an exchange in return for fiat. The market price of BTC goes down.
The price goes down, simply because a true believer cut his bitcoin holding, he got out. He thought having a server now was worth more to him than 10 tickets to the moon. Which is an expression of a negative view of the future value of bitcoin. A simple "aggressive" sale in trading parlance.
My understanding is that "Satoshi" had been trying to solve the technical problem of convincing a bunch of anonymous, volunteers to maintain and protect a distributed ledger, with no central authority.
He thought that he had a solution, in the form of a protocol that included PoW, miner rewards, longest chain, etc. The solution seemed to work on paper; but, as a good scientist, he started an experiment in order to check whether it would also work in practice.
For that experiment to be meaningful, it would have been enough if the coin was mined for several years only by a few hundred computer nerds, with the cooperation of some friendly pizza places and bars.
The US$ price of the coin was not important to the experiment, and it was never meant to be a weapon for libertarians, a way to buy drugs or evade taxes, a competitor to credit cards or Western Union, a sound investment or item for day-trading. All those "goals" were tacked onto it afterwards.
It gets even better than that, actually. A lot of bitcoiners don't like 'losing' bitcoin, and so coinbase added a popular 'repurchase bitcoin' feature that automatically debits your bank account to replenish the BTC in your coinbase account after a purchase.
The ultimate result then is that you pay coinbase fiat, they take their cut, and then send that fiat on to the merchant. All 'bitcoins' used in the middle of the transaction are not really bitcoins, but just abstractions in coinbase's internal [off-chain] accounting system.
It's a crap version of paypal, no consumer protection and a ton of fees hidden in the spread when you buy your chuck-e-cheese tokens from them.
Most people understand that there are different sorts of interaction. There are purely social interactions, there are quid-pro-quo interactions, and there are market interactions. Mixing those up causes embarrassment and insult. I wouldn't try to pay my mother-in-law ten bucks for cooking Christmas dinner, and I certainly wouldn't try to pay her ten cents. If a waiter suggests I try the raspberry tart, I won't get away with offering to bake him some cookies next week in compensation; if an office mate suggests I have a slice of her birthday cake, I'll be insulted if she brings me a bill for it. If I spend an hour helping my friend move apartments and he thanks me, I'm fine; we're friends helping each other out. If he pays me two bucks, I'm insulted; he's canceled the social nature of the interaction and instead simply bought my labor for a fraction of its going rate. I'm up two bucks but down a friend.
Ancapspergers, not particularly understanding any sort of interaction more complicated than buying a cheeseburger at Wendy's, assume that all interactions are a form of market transaction, and set pricing accordingly. Normal humans get offended by a penny shaving, because it cancels the social nature of the interaction and turns it into a market transaction--and then informs the recipient that his contribution to the transaction was of negligible value.
Posted in r/Bitcoin by u/zerosyztem • 95 points and 219 comments Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme. When the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the Entire European Union all give a “legal” status to something, you can bet it likely isn’t a Ponzi scheme. These countries may allow banks to operate in a way that hurts their citizens (in my opinion), but you can bet your right arm they’ve been very critical of cryptocurrency. I could stop there ... A Ponzi scheme is a zero sum game. In a Ponzi scheme, early adopters can only profit at the expense of late adopters, and the late adopters always lose. Bitcoin can have a win-win outcome. Earlier adopters profit from the rise in value as Bitcoin becomes better understood and in turn demanded by the public at large. All adopters benefit from the usefulness of a reliable and widely-accepted ... In April 2013, Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, stated that “a real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.” A July 2014 report by the World Bank concluded that bitcoin was not a deliberate Ponzi scheme. The following essay was written by Timothy C. May in 1988. “Libertaria in Cyberspace” is reprinted here for historical preservation.
[index]          
www.muchbitcoin.org = Learn more about Bitcoin Bitcoin is the first open source, peer to peer, decentralized technology to enable transfer of tamper-proof ow... In this video, I discuss whether or not Bitcoin is a Pyramid scheme or a Ponzi scheme. I conclude that it is neither, simply because: 1) Bitcoin is decentralized, not run by a corporation or ... Bitcoin mining reddit http://tiny.cc/AutoBTCgrowth You can Buy BTC Here: http://tiny.cc/jar Another great site to buy bitcoin with cash or credit card: http:... In this video, let's review Ponzi Scheme, Pyramid Schemes, and Bubbles, to review what we need to know, and Let's Discuss! Market Overview: 4:20 The Bitcoin Market: 6:45 Onecoin promised the world, but only proved to be a trail of destruction. --- About ColdFusion --- ColdFusion is an Australian based online media company ind...