On the energy consumption of Bitcoin.

I hear this complaint that "Bitcoin consumes as much as Ireland" (which, moreover, is a wrong example because by dint of data centers the consumption is 25.68 GWh, while Sicily, which has more people but fewer data centers, is 'stops at 19,535 Gwh): what sense does it make to compare the energy consumption of data centers with that of other data centers, only they know.

It is therefore an absurd statistic, but also completely hypocritical and pushed into the news by some furry powers.

First, how is Bitcoin mining done? Two main methods can be used. If you have a large infrastructure to keep them, you can use specially designed ASIC batteries.

In that case, it depends on how many you have, but the cost is relatively high:

This is the minority method, in the sense that if on the one hand it guarantees income even when the price of bitcoin is low compared to the difficulty of mining (which grows over time), the initial cost discourages most people.

It is not a majority because, only one unit in the example consumes ~ 3.1Kw, therefore it would exhaust the capacity of an Italian plant. Here in Germany where I have 16kWh as a normal power I could have a maximum of 5, but not more. And I would have a 16KH stove running continuously in the house.

This way of mining only makes up for it on a large scale, it means you have to add the cooling of the environment and a little bit of UPS. And for domestic energy costs it is advisable up to a certain point. It depends on the bitcoin price.

In any case, it is no longer a method followed, since in the European and American networks there are no changes related to the price of bitcoin, when it falls.

So what do you use? The most amateur and widespread way is to use the GPU of a graphics card, of those normally used for video games. And we know this, because when the price of bitcoin rises, graphics cards disappear from the market.

You buy yourself a card like this:

In each green slot put a graphics card, and start checking hashes.

This is, as you can imagine from the graph on the demand for graphic cards (normally used practically only for video games), it is the most common method, also for a question of price of equipment and energy consumption.

So we are at a rough estimate:

• Bitcoin mining with ASIC is a fraction of the energy used by data centers. A SMALL fraction as it does not affect the price of data center equipment.
• Bitcoin mining with GPU is a fraction of the energy used for video games. A big fraction, as it visibly influences the video game card market.

Now, the problem here is very simple: now you explain to me what your ecological ethics is.

• If we take the ASICs, then Bitcoin is bad because it consumes, while consuming for the Instagram, Facebook, Twitter datacenter is ok. What is the difference? Is it important or save the planet to see this on Instagram?

Clarify the ethics for which a datacenter that does Minecraft has the right to "do so much harm to the environment" because it uses energy, while Bitcoin does not. It will be interesting.

It will be interesting for a people who are asking the entire planet to get on a plane to do tourism on their beaches, it will be interesting for a world that plans to transform mobility into electricity, after having had the lockdown to understand that much mobility is NOT REALLY NEEDED , and now it complains that Bitcoin consumes too much and therefore is bad for the environment.

And here we are on Asic. Because the rest of the mining takes place on cards designed to cater to the gaming market (sure, sure. You do data mining at home. I know. And you never go to porn sites. Like everyone else).

Because if in the field of GPUs Bitcoin mining is an antagonist, albeit a small fraction, of gaming peripherals, I would like to understand why Gaming is and Bitcoin is not. Tell me why pretending to be a car thief is so essential that it consumes energy, while Bitcoin is not. Come on, I listen to you. And don't be afraid to go technical.

Back then, I've always been skeptical of bitcoin and remain so. But my anti-cazzing filter remains on: and seeing the financial newspapers speaking against cryptocurrencies, honestly, would activate my anti-cazzing filter a priori.

And if the criticism has no technological foundation, all the more so.

Buffoons. Ridiculous. Ridiculous & fools.

Then of course, there are those who go after him. Which are the usual NIMBYs.

• "Since I use facebook, then there is no problem if Facebook consumes 2Kw per GB in bringing European data from Ireland to the US."
• "Since I don't use Bitcoin, then it must be bullshit to spend energy on mining"

And that's all there is to know on the subject. A press of financial scoundrels who take advantage of the worst of the NIMBY scum to go against bitcoin.

Let's ask ourselves a question, gentlemen of the Courier: but how much the fuck does THE NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE consume, between network and CPU and backup?

Because we don't really need it, to tell the truth. You need it. Not me.