[layoric]

> Also comparing the energy cost of printing physical money with mining cryptocurrencies is favorable to CC's iirc.

Really? Last I checked, taking the averaged of the top 10 most efficient mining setups, BitCoin network was pulling 9GW+.

https://twitter.com/layoric/status/906087502414352384

Another model here showing 18 TWh annual usage, that's still an insane amount of power.

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

Proof of Work (and BitCoin in particular) is so damaging, really hoping another currency takes over that doesn't use so much power for 4 transactions per second..

[ekianjo]

> Really? Last I checked, taking the averaged of the top 10 most efficient mining setups, BitCoin network was pulling 9GW+.

And where is the comparison vs physical money? You know, with trucks moving around every day, and the cost of insurance, special facilities, salaries, etc...

[layoric]

I don't know of any data that isolates the energy cost of transport and storage of cash. Transactions are tricky, you could use the salary of the worker for the 5-15 seconds (or however long the handling/counting of cash takes) and equate that to cost of electricity.

Given a retail worker might cost a business $.03 per minute, you are looking at 1c per transaction. Now let's look at BTC. At 9GW when I looked at it, it was processing ~4.5, lets say 5, transactions per second. A kilo-watt-hour (kWh) of electricity will wholesale for 6c. If we are doing 5tx/s, that's 18000 in 1 hour. 9GWh to do 18000 transactions

(9,000,000,000) / (3600 * 5)

Gives us, 500 kWh per transaction, at 6c gives us $30 per transaction.

You might be able to argue subsequent cash handling might take a few minutes per transaction handles, but even so.

So given cash transactions save at least $20 per transaction, cost of transport and storage IMO would be negligable. These costs drop further with something like credit card transactions.

The two biggest problems I see with BitCoin and most PoW currencies (and I'm going to single out BitCoin) are;

1. BitCoin has a maximum transaction speed well below what is required for a world (or country/more localised) enconomy, 7 Tx/s doesn't cut it. VISA apparently does well over 1000+. 2. As mining gets harder, and as the network tries to reach the theoretical transaction speed limit, energy usage grows even more out of control.

9GW is such a massive amount of electricity at the moment. Even as solar + wind + storage becomes cheaper to build and capacities grow, it'll still be a huge amount of electricity and there usage by the BitCoin network will only grow. This is more electricity usage than the state of NSW in Australia _generates_ most of the time. That powers the residential and commercial electrical needs of a 1st world state with 7.5M people.

I think the more cheap power that is available to currencies like BTC, they'll keep using more and more with diminishing returns.

[pkulak]

Except that cash is used in about a third of consumer transactions, and basically not at all otherwise. Everything else is chain of trust and essentially free, in terms of energy and every other resource.

Besides, a single truck can move millions of dollars, and I doubt reaching out to take my money and then making change contributes very much to the salary of a shop keeper. Probably far less than scanning my phone and waiting an hour for 3 confirmations. The only way a cash transaction would use the same power as a Bitcoin one would be if I had to personally drive the money 1000 miles to its destination in a Tesla.

[xxxdarrenxxx]

Physical currency per bill needs to travel once and in big quantities in the same truck. Then it circulates on "residual human energy" from pocket to pocket for years.

There is an absolute initial cost, but then there is none. CC servers (and digital banking in general) needs a permanent upkeep of power.

I think the cost for paper money is neglible. Coins however is more interesting. Their face value tends to be less, yet weight is substantial compared to a paper bill.

Here I can see more an argument for cost.

This actually was very relevant going back a bit in history when we used silver and gold for money. You get a whole issue of material cost vs it's face value as well.

In case of heavy deflation, people might just melt pennies (copper) and sell them for other (ie. international) currency. To increase the person's actual buying power.

There's also a general argument to be made for copper and in the past gold for currency, as these materials hold an inherit value for their atomic makeup and it's applicable use which simply can't be justified/compared vs it's value as a human usable currency.

In general, both currencies have their values.

Physical: needs no power upkeep, nor situational power and data connection to work.

This is great for reliability.

A nice thing about digital currency though, is the power we get. Instant transfer over physical irrelevant distances is pretty nice.

Another nice thing is I feel more comfortable with just 20 bucks cash. If I wanted to go out in a world without digital transfers, I would carry a lot with me, for the drinks, the food, buy a situational ticket for some party you come across, money for a taxi/train.

In a world without digital currency, "hitting jackpot" for a robber is statistically absolutely higher, and thus it would potentially increase crime levels quite a bit.