Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin
US government tracking the energy implications of booming bitcoin mining in US.
Over 2 percent of the US’s electricity generation now goes to bitcoin::US government tracking the energy implications of booming bitcoin mining in US.
You're viewing a single thread.
How much goes to the dollar?
There's a powered device or 5 in every store connected to a credit server.
All that energy for bitcoin only supports 7 tx/s. Digital dollar payments do tens if not hundres of thousands per second.
tx/s?
Transactions per second. Bitcoin is slow and expensive to get your transaction "approved".
Expensive is relative. It's expensive to send a $5 transaction and pay $1 in fees. However, you can move a million dollars in value and pay that same $1 in fees. That $1 in fees can also open a lightning channel which can contain essentially infinite transactions within it. For small transactions, Lightning transactions settle in under a second for fees measured in pennies.
Compared to a bank wire, western union, or other remittance services, $1 is an absolute steal.
Transactions per second
On main chain. Via lightning you can support all the capacity of Visa/Mastercard/banks and then some. Main chain provides the security for lightning, lightning provides the transaction storage space and infrastructure.
The lightning infrastructure, if you graph it, looks very similar to existing global payment networks. The difference is that transactions settle instantly because they are protected by the underlying blockchain and they are automated with no middlemen to delay things. No complicated currency conversions, no banks negotiating liquidity in blocks manually and having to buy/sell other assets to stay in balance, no bank holidays, less fees. Which means you can take your money from person-to-person faster, which reduces friction in the economy. Which is exactly what a good currency should be.
Are you paid to post that nonsense?
For those in blissful ignorance: This uses so-called channels between participants. Opening a lightning channel means, basically, putting bitcoin in "escrow" on the blockchain. This requires multiple transactions on the blockchain. Bitcoin doesn't even have enough capacity to open a channel for each baby being born.
The amount that both sides put in "escrow" is the max payment imbalance that a channel can accept. Say, you want to use a channel to buy a car for $20k, then you need a channel that both you and the other guy have put in $20k in bitcoin.
If some calamity happens, these funds are lost in nirvana.
This requires multiple transactions on the blockchain
It literally requires one to open and one to close, so like $1 most of the time in fees. If you have a custodial wallet, it requires zero. You can keep a channel open forever. Within that channel, you can have essentially infinite transactions between you and any other party and you can use the channel to route payments to anybody on lightning network. All those transactions settle within a second and have fees measured in pennies. A channel doesn't need to be opened for every baby being born, babies don't use money. Seriously though, there are additional improvements coming down the pipe (like channel factories) which enable you to use one on-chain tx to make hundreds of channels. People do not understand the scale lightning works at.
The amount that both sides put in “escrow” is the max payment imbalance that a channel can accept
All of this is abstracted away for you as a user, you don't have to worry about it, especially for custodial wallets. Most people earn and spend roughly the same amount each month, so liquidity isn't anything they ever need to think about. There are also automated ways to rent inbound liquidity which are incredibly cheap, that can be done with self-custody wallets.
Say, you want to use a channel to buy a car for $20k, then you need a channel that both you and the other guy have put in $20k in bitcoin.
Wrong. If you want to buy a car for $20k, you have to put $20k into lightning. The other guy doesn't have to put in anything aside from the $1 in on-chain tx fees to be on the lightning network in the first place, which he doesn't even pay if he has a custodial wallet. Then you send that 20k to the guy with the car. Now you can receive up to 20k in payments in that channel. Not that you would spend $20k via lightning, if you are buying a car and moving that much money, use main chain.
If some calamity happens, these funds are lost in nirvana.
Calamity doesn't happen, funds don't get lost. Custodial wallets literally never encounter this, it's all handled by your custodian. Non-custodial wallets also rarely encounter this, all the incentives are lined up to make "force closes" (which is what I assume you are referring to) rare. And of those force closes, the only risk is that your counterparty publishes an old version of the channel. You have like five days to correct and publish your more recent version to claim your funds. And if they tried to cheat you out of your funds, you get your funds and they pay a penalty. Given that watchtowers are basically automated, this never happens. Your funds from one of your channels might be stuck on-chain for a few days at worst, this is not a nightmare scenario. Banks and traditional payment processors have random holds all the time, especially when dealing with anything international. The difference is, the funds in lightning are always yours because you have the key. There is no scenario where when properly used, you lose funds in lightning.
I can see that you don't know how this works. That's ok. It's nonsense. No one needs to know about that.
Custodial wallets work just like checking accounts, without the regulation. Crypto victims like to say: Not your keys, not your coins. The custodian owes you the crypto that you have in your account/custodial wallet. You own a debt payable in crypto. If the custodian goes bankrupt and can't pay the debts, you are screwed (as so many crypto victims have found out to their shock). The money in a normal checking account is covered by a mandatory deposit insurance scheme, so you don't have to worry about that.
Because custodial accounts replicate checking accounts, they can be just as fast and efficient, in themselves. Having to pay the upkeep of the blockchain in the background means, that they can't be as cheap as actual checking accounts. If a custodial wallet offers you better conditions than a checking account, they must be gambling with the crypto (that you loaned them) in some way, that a normal bank is prohibited from doing with customer funds.
For the sake of completeness: Exchanges in more regulated jurisdictions work like stock brokerages. They must hold the assets. In case of bankruptcy, they are special assets that belong to the customer and are not used to pay creditors in general.
While Lightning doesn't need you to open a channel for every new recipient and has smart routing through other participants, I still think it's an inconvenient solution we don't have to take.
We have Solana, a 300.000+ TPS Layer-1. We have much smarter Ethereum Layer-2's that don't require this bullshit. We have many ways to tackle this problem, it's the hyperfocus on Bitcoin that, in my opinion, makes people go for Lightning network anyway.
Solana is incredibly centralized compared to BTC. The higher the TPS on your base layer the harder it is to meet the hardware requirements to run a full node. Scaling in layers is the solution.
Eth's L2s are a confusing mess. They offer a variety of degrees of security and decentralization, some of them, like Polygon, are a network run with only 15 validators, yikes! And many of them are secured by a single bridge. There have been plenty of notable bridge hacks, it is not fun when your currency gets depegged.
Solana currently has 1777 validators - which doesn't look like much compared to Bitcoin, but is actually way more than enough for any practical intents and purposes.
You need the same infrastructure for any electronic payment system.
What you don't need for anything is crypto "mining", which is almost pure overhead. That's what the article is about.
It's not pure overhead. It's the means of initial distribution and also mining is the backend for handling transactions. Not that I think it's efficient by any means. It's just that it was necessary for Bitcoin to ever become something that mattered.
Mining is barely transactional in nature. Pretty much all of it is calculating hashes, which, on one hand, is super important as part of Proof-of-Work consensus, the most decentralized one we have, but on the other we have other reasonably secure options that waste two orders of magnitude less power.
It's not necessary to perform any of the functions of crypto, including money laundering. That makes it pure overhead; pure waste. There are offshore banks that facilitate tax fraud and other criminal activity. Crypto, somehow, allows exchanges to escape the scrutiny that falls on these banks. Objectively, there is no good reason why all this waste should let you avoid scrutiny of regulators or police.
