@resist_berlin
Good for them. Calculating electricity per transaction is meaningless since the network energy consumption simply does not scale with respect to transaction volume. It shows a blatant lack of understanding of the technology and invalidates their analysis.

@uranther It is meaningless in the sense that one new transaction does not *cause* the consumption of 981 additional kWh. But as a measure for the inefficiency of the network - numbers of transactions divided by total energy consumption - it is still a valid indicator.

@resist_berlin
Efficiency* #ftfy

@resist_berlin @uranther no it's not because at the moment it's not being used the way it's supposed to be used. At the moment there are just mostly miners trying to make money, but few people using btc for paying day to day things. If people started paying normally with it, the electricity per transaction would be negligible

@uranther @resist_berlin

I don't understand the argument

The energy consumption maybe doesn't scale with transactions, but that doesn't make it meaningless

The total energy consumption still matters both to energy poverty and to greenhouse gas

Maybe there's no relationship with how many transactions have been made but your single transaction is still quite impactful

Isn't it ?

@catonano
No, it's not. Find some other stat to harp on as this is pure FUD.
@resist_berlin

@WAHa_06x36
You're an idiot. Even the sigfigs are fucked.
@resist_berlin

@uranther @resist_berlin Is significant figures really the best you can come up with? That is like literally the smallest mistake you can make in a number.