SoylentNews

Study: Bitcoin Network Uses at Least 2.55 GW of Electricity

posted by martyb on Monday May 21 2018, @02:12PM   
from the how-many-DeLoreans? dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

According to a press release carried by Eurekalert

In the first rigorously peer-reviewed article quantifying Bitcoin's energy requirements, a Commentary appearing May 16 in the journal Joule, financial economist and blockchain specialist Alex de Vries uses a new methodology to pinpoint where Bitcoin's electric energy consumption is headed and how soon it might get there.

The abstract of the article says

The Bitcoin network can be estimated to consume at least 2.55 gigawatts of electricity currently, and potentially 7.67 gigawatts in the future, making it comparable with countries such as Ireland (3.1 gigawatts) and Austria (8.2 gigawatts). [...]

The author offers a caveat:

[...] all of the methods discussed assume rational agents. There may be various reasons for an agent to mine even when this isn't profitable, and in some cases costs may not play a role at all when machines and/or electricity are stolen or abused.

[Other] reasons for an agent to mine Bitcoin at a loss might include [...] being able to obtain Bitcoin completely anonymously, libertarian ideology [...] or speculative reasons.

---

Original Submission

• Not the first by a year. (Score: 4, Interesting) by FakeBeldin on Monday May 21 2018, @04:04PM

  by FakeBeldin (3360) on Monday May 21 2018, @04:04PM (#682233) Journal

  In the first rigorously peer-reviewed article quantifying Bitcoin's energy requirements, a Commentary appearing May 16...

  First? The very first?? Let me google that for you.

  Oh lookey here: Sustainability of bitcoin and blockchains [sciencedirect.com], by Harald Vranken, October 2017 (and available online since May 2017). So it's scooped by about a year.

  That's really not the first rigorously peer-reviewed article on this subject by a long shot.

  Let's look at the journals:
  - Alex de Vries: Joule, volume 2, issue 5.
  - Harald Vranken: Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, volume 28.

  So the later article appeared in a rather new journal (only 2 volumes). I don't see how being new makes your journal significantly better at peer review.
  Frankly, I don't think there's necessarily a correlation - but I suspect that many bogus journals exist. And getting a reputation as a journal doesn't happen overnight. So for new journals, I would be highly skeptical about the quality of the journal.

  So yeah, on any reasonable metric, this news fails.

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+2
  Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
  Extra 'Interesting' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		4