[scottiebarnes]

> ie. about between 300 and a million times more energy than VISA/Mastercard when adjusted to the number of transactions. [0]

This isn't really an apple to apples comparison. Since Bitcoin is a programmable platform, its possible to scale upwards exponentially with layer 2's (Lightning network), which allows for even more tps. Since transactions wouldn't need to run on the main chain (other than opening and closing channels), the upper bound is much higher.

https://d-central.tech/bitcoins-lightning-network-from-seven...

[plopilop]

A real, complete comparison is impossible as the two systems are fundamentally different and too complicated. What I like with that comparison is remains very simple. If you'd scale BTC to the amount of tx operated by VISA/MC, you'd need around 50% of the world electricity, which is clearly more than what Visa takes. Also it's a comparison of the fundamental part of the exchange, i.e. the authority checking for the authorization (visa or the miner).

If we incorporate the lightning network, then we must also take into account the electricity to run the servers for the intermediate exchanges etc. On the other hand, one could also lower the fiat electricity cost by factoring in the cash transactions.

TBH i'd be interested to see a reasonable estimation of the BTC+lightning emission costs per transaction, I'll admit I have no idea how much lightning brings the cost down.

[scottiebarnes]

> If you'd scale BTC to the amount of tx operated by VISA/MC, you'd need around 50% of the world electricity

Well, it doesn't make sense to scale the main chain in that sort of way, because you'd be looking at blocks the size of several terabytes in order to fit in global scale transactions. And so running a node would then require you to basically run a data center, which wouldn't make the system decentralized at all.

Electricity for mining is also not directly related to transaction throughput. Mining is the arbitrage of bitcoin price and electricity/mining hardware cost. The system technically does not need more electricity to secure the same amount of transactions. What happens is when bitcoin's price goes up, so does that arbitrage value, giving mining a profit incentive.

[plopilop]

> because you'd be looking at blocks the size of several terabytes in order to fit in global scale transactions.

My comparison would rely on running several bitcoin networks in parallel. Of course it does not make sense economically speaking, but it allows for a back of the envelope estimate.

> Electricity for mining is also not directly related to transaction throughput

This is true, but when you look at the C02 consumption (which was the topic of discussion when I first posted, before my OP decided to completely change subject), the mining cost is what you look for.

[scottiebarnes]

> My comparison would rely on running several bitcoin networks in parallel. Of course it does not make sense economically speaking, but it allows for a back of the envelope estimate.

Mmmm, I understand you're looking for a convenient way to mathematically equate the two on a per transaction basis for comparison's sake, but its just really difficult. For example, your several bitcoin networks in parallel doesn't really exist, because separate networks running in parallel are not interoperable (Bitcoin vs Litecoin). You lose the utility of network effects, etc.

Its like comparing energy costs of bicycles and ocean freighters, but no amount of bicycles could ever tow freight across an ocean.

[plopilop]

> You lose the utility of network effects, etc

Oh yes, you lose a lot of functionalities, but it's not the focus of the computation, simply to estimate, with the current technology, how much it compares to Visa in terms of electricity consumption. To be honest it would maybe make more sense to actually scale Visa down to bitcoin transaction rate, as we can assume more linearity there. The end result is the same though.

> Its like comparing energy costs of bicycles and ocean freighters, but no amount of bicycles could ever tow freight across an ocean.

Quite. However it seems to me its seems unavoidable to do so, since energy efficiency is a big topic these days. Also, while nobody pretends to be able to carry a load across oceans with a bike, it is usually advised to commute by bike rather than a freighter.

[Defitio]

Ah yes the lightning network argument.

In practice people have problems even understanding bitcoins (general speaking and El Salvador specific) and now lightning is the solution while people not even get Bitcoin.

But yes lightning also doesn't work in El Salvador.

So

[scottiebarnes]

> But yes lightning also doesn't work in El Salvador.

Do you have any citations?

I'm running a lightning node on testnet...have had some small issues finding a pathway in the graph to one of my nodes, but then again I'm new to it.

> In practice people have problems even understanding bitcoins (general speaking and El Salvador specific) and now lightning is the solution while people not even get Bitcoin.

Most people don't understand how tcp/ip or dns work, yet they have no problem using applications based on it on a daily basis.

[Defitio]

There was a documentary in Arte. It's a french German art channel state funded.

A reporter went there after she got invited from him and zig other crypto bros.

[scottiebarnes]

Right, well I haven't seen that program, but here's some realtime lightning network statistics:

https://1ml.com/statistics

Currently ~17k nodes, 82k channels, ~5k BTC capacity ($100m) on the network.

The network's capacity is up about 66% is the last year: https://bitcoinvisuals.com/ln-capacity

[Defitio]

I found it and it has subtitles: https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/101938-007-A/42-the-answer-to-...

Arte is quite known for its cultural tv and documentaries.

And your statistics is not saying much. Relevant is real life. Take a look at the documentary how people in El Salvador use crypto and not some white dude with too much money waiting for the next big thing.

[scottiebarnes]

I'll try and watch it but it seems geo locked.

> And your statistics is not saying much. Relevant is real life.

The statistics are real life: they represent people committing time and resources by hosting nodes and risking their btc to use on a developing, experimental live network.

But what you're doing is the equivalent of looking at early 90's internet, not understanding it, and pronouncing, 'This is stupid, nobody will use this 'Internet' to meet other people. People aren't going to order their pizzas online. Just ask anyone on the street; nobody knows what internet is, and therefore this is a failure.'