The deVries estimate of ~2.55GW/26PH/s (mid Mar 2018) tracks closely with mrb’s lower bound estimate of 1.62GW/16.2PH/s (mid Jan 2018). In just two months the power consumption and hash rate has risen 60%. Two months later, mid-May 2018, the hash rate is around 31 PH/s, an increase of 20%.
This is on par with historical increases documented by mrb (325 TH/s in late Feb 2017 to 640 TH/s in late Jul 2017, an increase of 100% in 5 months). If we see an average growth of 100% each 4 months, then we will easily surpass 100 PH/s by year-end, which is around 10GW, or around 0.4% of the world energy production.
Thanks for the response and analysis. I think I have qualms with how mrb exaggerates the difference in their conclusions. He says Alex' numbers are "rather inflated" and has told me before that Alex makes "fundamentally flawed assumptions" and has "holes and flaws" in his logic, when really when you look at the difference in their forecast it's 0.5% versus 0.4%... both numbers support the general idea that assuming the technology brings no efficiency to society, Bitcoin is an environmental catastrophe.
Alex's BECI model claims Bitcoin currently consumes 7.6 GW. Whereas this paper is more reasonable and states the future consumption might grow to 7.6 GW by the end of 2018. These are 2 very different statemetns. What I call "fundamentally flawed" is the BECI claim, not this paper.
Comments
The deVries estimate of ~2.55GW/26PH/s (mid Mar 2018) tracks closely with mrb’s lower bound estimate of 1.62GW/16.2PH/s (mid Jan 2018). In just two months the power consumption and hash rate has risen 60%. Two months later, mid-May 2018, the hash rate is around 31 PH/s, an increase of 20%.
This is on par with historical increases documented by mrb (325 TH/s in late Feb 2017 to 640 TH/s in late Jul 2017, an increase of 100% in 5 months). If we see an average growth of 100% each 4 months, then we will easily surpass 100 PH/s by year-end, which is around 10GW, or around 0.4% of the world energy production.
Thanks for the response and analysis. I think I have qualms with how mrb exaggerates the difference in their conclusions. He says Alex' numbers are "rather inflated" and has told me before that Alex makes "fundamentally flawed assumptions" and has "holes and flaws" in his logic, when really when you look at the difference in their forecast it's 0.5% versus 0.4%... both numbers support the general idea that assuming the technology brings no efficiency to society, Bitcoin is an environmental catastrophe.
Alex's BECI model claims Bitcoin currently consumes 7.6 GW. Whereas this paper is more reasonable and states the future consumption might grow to 7.6 GW by the end of 2018. These are 2 very different statemetns. What I call "fundamentally flawed" is the BECI claim, not this paper.
Oh I see. Thank you for clarifying.