Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Did you read that article you posted?

Those stats assumed CPU/GPU and FPGA, not ASIC, miners.

For instance, the 5-to-500-gigahash-per-second rigs would have to be running at over 300k watts of electricity using those statistics. :)

So in reality, the network is much more efficient -- the high-end miners are using more than 100x less electricity (which would still be 3000 watts for high-end rigs per those numbers), and probably closer to 1000x less, than those estimates.



current hash rate GH/s: 300,000,000 //https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate

GH/s/w: 4.6 // http://www.coindesk.com/a-look-inside-kncminer/

watts to provite current hash rate: 300,000,000/4.6 = 65,217,391.30 w

kw to provide 1s: 65,217.39

an hour of that: 65,217.39*3600

234,782,604 kwh

10c per kwh => $23,478,260.4 per hour

24 hours => $563,478,249.60

my own figures are even more wacky so I would welcome some better statistics.


Your calculation is WAY off, which the bizarrely high end result should have made obvious. Multiplying by 3600 is where you go wrong.

65,217kW is the energy usage. Providing that for an hour takes 65,217kWh - not multiplied by anything.

So that's $6,521 per hour, $156,521 per day.


great thanks, 100 times cheaper than the forbes article.

ps it wasn't obvious at all, that's why i wrote "even more wacky" as mark of how solid i thought the figures were.

3600*7 = 25200 transactions for $6521.

they'd really want to see about increasing the block size.


The block size is not the limit here; the protocol aims for one block every 10 minutes so that users don't have to wait too long to get a transaction confirmed.

Cost per transaction would go down drastically with increased usage.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: