Contact

The #energy footprint for one #Bitcoin transaction (626 KWh) equates to: -1 US household 21 days (DE: 65, CN: 176)#CarbonFootprint per TX: 297 KG -742,500 VISA transactions -49,500 hours of watching Youtube#Ewaste per TX: 79 gramsbitcoinenergyconsumption.com

4:53 pm · August 25, 2019

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

The latest #Ethereum Energy Consumption Index is 7.136 TWh per Year/0.66 Mil US households (+0.23%) ethereumenergyconsumption.com28.3 KWh per unique transaction (powers 1 US household for 1 days) #MakeEthereumSustainable

4:36 pm · August 25, 2019

Palley

@stephendpalley

Closed systems that deny negative externalities are like a snickers bar in the sun.

3:59 pm · August 25, 2019 ·

Retweeted by Digiconomist

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

The latest #Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index is 73.121 TWh per year (comparable to a country like Austria) bitcoinenergyconsumption.com #BTC's TWh usage results in a #CarbonFootprint of 34.73 Mt CO2 per year (comparable to a country like Denmark) #MakeBitcoinSustainable

3:31 pm · August 25, 2019

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

#Bitcoin #EWaste Generation is at 9.224 kilotonnes per year (comparable to a country like Luxembourg) bitcoinelectronicwaste.comA footprint of 79 grams per unique transaction (equal to the weight of1.2 'C'-size batteries, 1.7 golf balls or 2.3 sixty-watt light bulbs) #M

2:18 pm · August 25, 2019

Nano Is Green 🌱

@NanoIsGreen

#Bitcoin's climate impact is global. And it is only getting worse.* Bitcoin's network uses more power than 6,770,506 U.S households. * If you rank Countries by energy consumption, #BTC slots in at #40 (in front of Austria).#cryptocurrency #money $BTC #ClimateChange #retweet pic.twitter.com/NpzQESRhfW

11:03 am · August 25, 2019 ·

Retweeted by Digiconomist

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

@NanoIsGreen @AcceptCryptoUK @nanoseagull Exactly. Renewables have been taken into consideration, but people severely overestimate what that means in terms of carbon output 🤷‍♂️

11:00 am · August 25, 2019

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

@furziadmi @notsofast So if you ask me; the “good enough” alternatives are already out there - but they’re unlikely to be implemented while developers have a financial interest in keeping PoW alive blockstream.com/2019/08/08/en…

10:57 am · August 25, 2019

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

@furziadmi @notsofast In general the cost of attacking PoW blockchains is likely to be lower. We’ve seen succesful 51% attacks on PoW chains (#Bitcoin Gold, #Ethereum Classic). Succesful 51% on PoS systems are less common 🧐

10:54 am · August 25, 2019

Digiconomist

@DigiEconomist

@furziadmi @notsofast Meanwhile PoS systems have been out there, running and improving for years. And while hard to prove which ones are superior (due to different attack vectors), for sure is that a lot arguments like e.g. “PoS is too centralsing” simply don’t hold (so does PoW).

10:48 am · August 25, 2019