this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2023
199 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37737 readers
350 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

It seems I have fundamentally misunderstood how bitcoin mining works. Thanks for the correction.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this. If the marginal energy cost of a transaction is 744kWh, shouldn't the transaction fees be astronomical?

[–] gus@beehaw.org 4 points 11 months ago

The reward for mining a block is over a quarter of a million dollars these days. $250k / 4k transactions = apx $62.50 per transaction. Around $8 is from the transaction fee from the sender, the other $54 is from the block reward minted out of thin air.

[–] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, at current electricity prices where I live that would be just under £300,000 per transaction. Doesn't seem right.

Edit: as pointed out, I was out by a factor of 100. Electricity costs 40p per kWh here.

[–] GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You sure you have the magnitude right on that? From a quick search, I think it should only be about £200 in e.g. London, with similar prices in big cities across the US. I thought those were relatively high prices to begin with.

[–] EinfachUnersetzlich@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

You're right. It was late.

[–] conorab@lemmy.conorab.com 1 points 11 months ago

Unless I am mistaken, the total number the other comment is raising is how much power the entire network spent calculating the transaction, not how much the winner (the one who got paid out) spent. You calculate the energy consumption of the entire network because that power was still spent on the transaction even if the rest of the network wasn’t rewarded. I have no idea if the numbers presented are correct but the reasoning seems sensible. Maybe I’m wrong though. :)