• @Deemo
    link
    English
    175 months ago

    I do wonder how this compares to current payment processors (Visa, Mastercard, Paypal, etc)

      • @GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        20
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I don’t think that’s really equivalent. They are averaging the energy usage of mining and usage across the number of transactions. The overwhelming majority of that energy would be on mining.

        What is the equivalent of mining in terms in VISA transactions? How much energy does that use? What is the marginal cost of a Bitcoin transaction? If you’re including Bitcoin mining in your per-transaction costs, shouldn’t you include the entire operating costs of VISA, along with the partners they rely on like banks, mints, and even physical mines?

        Bitcoin is not a 1:1 equivalent of anything in the traditional financial world, so coming up with a meaningful comparison is difficult. It’s a little bit currency, a little bit transaction processing, a little bit “mining”, and a little bit banking. Despite the hype, I don’t think it’s a full replacement for any one of those things.

        • @Overzeetop@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          145 months ago

          You can’t have a transaction without mining. Mining is the work done to solve a batch of transactions, so the exact cost of a transaction is easy to determine provided that you don’t include the cost of plant (buildings and IT to run the miners, though this is usually very minor compared to the actual calculation consumption). Each block contains (typically) between 3000 and 4000 transactions and is solved every 10 minutes. As of today, it takes 2.6GWh to solve a block, given the current number of miners (137TWh/yr per https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption), which is 744kWh per transaction at 3500 transactions per block.

          The cost of a Visa transaction is more difficult because there are people involved and other plant costs (buildings to house the people who work for Visa). The actual cost to process a Visa transaction, in direct transactional power usage, is trivial because a Raspberry Pi can “process” hundreds of thousands of transactions a second locally - it’s literally a couple hundred bytes of login/query/reply data, and adding or subtracting from a ledger which is mirrored to distributed servers. Distributed across a server with enough transactions to keep it busy it’s probably a few hundred milliseconds on 1/8 of a 50W processor - call it 0.001Wh at the server, which is the equivalent of the 700kWh per bitcoin transaction. If we say that there are 10 machines all doing the same virtual transaction on each physical transaction (incl. POS, backup, billing, etc) and we figure a 5:1 cost of total power (a/c, losses, memory, storage) then we’re all the way up to 0.00005kWh (0.05 Wh, or 180 watt-seconds) per transaction. That means that the overall cost for visa to process your charge is 1.5kWh/0.00005kWh for the computers or 30,000:1 due to humans being involved in the process.

          Here’s the thing, though: Bitcoin gets harder (more compute intensive) as time goes on, and the rate of increase is faster than the ability to solve, on a Wh basis. IE - Bitcoin transactions will get more expensive over time unless bitcoin changes their code - and there is always resistance to that because there is a financial disincentive to reduce the work in Proof of Work systems. This is mitigated on other blockchains by using Proof of Stake, but that has other implications. Visa, otoh, is taking advantage of AI and drops in processor and storage costs to lower their per-transaction cost because there is a financial incentive to reduce processing costs as the fees charged are fixed (nominally 3% of the transaction cost) and anything left over is profit.

          • @GenderNeutralBro@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            55 months ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              45 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
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              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.

            • @conorab@lemmy.conorab.com
              link
              fedilink
              15 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. :)

          • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            35 months ago

            Bitcoin transactions will get more expensive over time unless bitcoin changes their code

            other events could precipitate a decrease in power used per bitcoin transaction.

            • @Overzeetop@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              45 months ago

              Again, it would take a substantial change to the code or reality. The options are to change the block size (more transactions per block), alter the difficulty curve (which is intended to limit growth in the limited bitcoin supply), alter the way blocks are solved (massive theoretical mathematical breakthrough or, possibly, a move from asic to quantum computing), or switch away from proof of work. The first increases the storage of the blockchain (substantially for a substantial reduction), rewrite - and get approval - to change the difficulty steps which had been a hallmark of the system, the third is magical thinking, and the fourth completely undermines the egalitarian ethos of the coin.

              I’ve heard of no substantive move on any front to alter the plan because, for now, it working. And the true believers are generally libertarians who have faith that market forces will correct any shortcomings organically. This usually results in everything working perfectly right up until it doesn’t, at which point the wheels come off and the bus slams into the class of kindergarteners crossing the road.

              • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                25 months ago

                the network is self-adjusting. if hash power begins to decrease, the network will decrease difficulty to maintain the target of 10 minute block times. lots of things could lead to decreased hash power. the whole network could be run with a cleverly configured raspberry pi

                • @Overzeetop@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  15 months ago

                  the whole network could be run with a cleverly configured raspberry pi

                  Which would defeat the entire purpose of a distributed blockchain. I’m ribbing you, of course, on that ;-) Bitcoin was not built for efficiency and the very basis of distributed proof of work trades efficiency for security. The more “successful” it gets, the larger the incentive to waste power in a fight to win each block reward becomes - by design.

        • Sonori
          link
          fedilink
          55 months ago

          Even when you throw in the entire electrical consumption of Visa down to the last lightbulb and ATM you’re going to be dwarfed by bitcoin. Mining is inherently necessary for bitcoin to process and records transactions, but even if it wasn’t the scale of waste just kills bitcoin. Running a few office buildings to serve hundreds of millions of people just can’t compete on a per transaction cost. And comparing the energy needed of one way to send money online to another way to send money online seems fair enough to me.

          For scale, in an electric suv like the Ionic 5, 708kwh is enough to drive from California to Florida, and that’s necessarily for every single transaction.

      • @Michal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        25 months ago

        But does it account for manufacturing of the plastic cards, delivering it to the user, and the added expense of the extra weight when carrying it around? /s

      • admiralteal
        link
        fedilink
        11
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        By design.

        Bitcoin has pretty much no incentive to make the transactions efficient. The load is distributed to other people (their customers), and their biggest customers have a perverse incentive to want the transactions to be as inefficient as possible in order to discourage competition.

        Vista et al have to pay for their own transactions, so keeping it light is simple cost savings and totally rational.

      • @wolframhart@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        25 months ago

        Sorry, I’ve not kept up to date with crypto, but wasn’t ethereum due to move from computational mining to staking? Wouldn’t that be a lot more efficient, or is that not a thing yet?

        • coffeetest
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          ethereum moved to proof of stake sometime back. BTC and I think a few other (very) minor cryptos still use proof of work which is where the significant power usage goes. Not something I track but I believe the vast majority of non-BTC cyptos are proof of stake or something not proof of work anyway and BTC is the only one that uses proof of work and is used at all. That might not exactly be technically correct but it is in the practical realm.

      • @jarfil@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        15 months ago

        Most importantly, VISA, MasterCard, etc. are far more profitable for VISA, MasterCard, etc. stock holders.