Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Digiconomist 3223 days ago
Just want to note that 60% is the expected future (ultimately), but the current % is more like 22 (found by taking the total cost # divided by the total annualized mining revenue #).
1 comments

So in that case it's only ~2 houses rather than 5.58? Is this your website? Do you think the figure should be made more accurate?
Ah no, it's 5.58 for the current 22%. If it actually gets to 60% it would be much worse.
If you aren't going to disclose your actual assumptions and methodology you should probably delete all the text that purports to do that.

Will save people time.

Huh? It's all in the infographic. 60% is the target, but "production takes time" (see content here) hence the "ultimately". I'm not hiding the current number, it's in the key statistics.

If you're interested in where the 60% comes from in the first place > it's based on the lifetime costs of a number of machines. It was on the page a while ago, but the index page itself isn't a research paper so I removed it. I'll give it a new spot soon, probably on this page (already containing the foundation of the method):

https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-electricity-consumption

If you just want to see some real-world numbers, check out my break-down a farm recently:

https://twitter.com/digieconomist/status/898582265080446976

(Note: subtle difference between part spent on elec & part spent on ongoing costs. I take costs and then 1 kWh for every 5 cents spent, so including overhead.)

Okay, I'll rephrase: An explanation of where each number in the table comes from would be more interesting than the current text.

It would also be useful to separate the table so that one contained the information meant to be conveyed by the index and another contained the impressive comparisons to countries and households and stuff.