NVIDIA Launching "CMP" Cards For Professional Mining, Limits RTX 3060 Mining Potential

[qarium]

Sure but that only matters when you convert it, the goal of Bitcoin was to be usable on its own I believe so I wouldn't really count that; like I wrote before the valuation/speculation has little to do with the actual technology.

but 1 bitcoin is 50000 dollars ... if you convert it or NOT..
means today bitcoin is much more power efficient per dollar...
even if you use it on its own.... 1 bitcoin is still 50000dollars.

so the claim that it consumes more and more power is wrong. for the same number of money it used less and less power.

[drakonas777]

I do not understand why are you emphasizing energy per dollar, which is meaningless parameter. It's all about energy per transaction.

[qarium]

I do not understand why are you emphasizing energy per dollar, which is meaningless parameter. It's all about energy per transaction.

bitcoin is not only used to tansfer money. some people use it to store money.

because of this it is both per transaction... and per dollar.

[drakonas777]

I don't get it. Why energy cost depends on the amount of BTC. OK say i have empty wallet. I can buy (or get transferred or whatever) 1 BTC or 2BTCs. After that, I do nothing. How 2 BTCs "stored" cost me more energy than 1?

[qarium]

I don't get it. Why energy cost depends on the amount of BTC. OK say i have empty wallet. I can buy (or get transferred or whatever) 1 BTC or 2BTCs. After that, I do nothing. How 2 BTCs "stored" cost me more energy than 1?

very simple: if you shut down the bitcoin network the energy costs will be 0€ but your 2BTC then is gone.

this means to store money in bitcoin is NOT possible without the burn of energy.

[drakonas777]

Hmm, makes sense I guess. But there is no direct dependency between amount of BTCs stored and energy required for that. Or is it? I mean the Network is either functional or not. If it is, energy required for online node or whatever is not directly related to the amount of BTC, is't it? Say there are absolute 0 transactions on the network for some time. Does energy required for keeping network stuff online directly depends on the total amount of BTCs?

I mean this energy per BTC metric is kind of energy per allocated megabyte metric in RAM. If RAM usage is low, 1 used meg will have "higher cost", if usage is high, 1 meg will have "lower cost" (from mathematical point of view that is), but essentially RAM needs virtually identical amount of energy to function in both cases, it does not depend on the amount of used memory (at least a lot, perhaps little due some IMC optimizations and shit, let's not dig into details). That's why i find this parameter to be not that useful. Or perhaps I really don't get something...

[MadeUpName]

It's an interesting position NVidia is in. Crypto is a cylical market prone to manipulation by the people that run the various cryptos where as gaming has been a steady market and looks like it will keep going long into the future. The problem is that if you are a game developer and the game consoles are all RDNA and no one can buy an NVidia card for gaming why would I put development money into NVidia only technologies? I am going to focus on AMD. NVidia is really trying to push their flavour of ray tracing right now but if I am a game maker do I see much payback in chasing that? The 4 year old cards NVidia is re-releasing don't support the new ray tracing tech. If no one is buying your cards for gaming should you continue to spend R&D on gaming features? If the game makers focus on AMD is there any market share left for NVidia when crypto stops being profitable in a few years? Then there is the question of content creators basically in the same boat as the game market. On the other hand the share holders who think short term have to be loving the miners.

As for cryypto it's self I will add three things. First the price of crypto can be manipulated by the people that run the crypto by changing how hard it is to create new crypto. The people that run the various cryptos are not elected or accountable to any one that holds their crypto. That is a recipe for disaster. The second issue I see is that China is making great strides in quantum computing. That has the potential to make cranking out crypto trivial which will have a devastating effect on the price of any crypto they decide to target. Finally crypto depends on a transaction history of every thing done with it including every purchase. That makes Google, Facebook etc look like privacy evangelists. Count me out.

[qarium]

Hmm, makes sense I guess. But there is no direct dependency between amount of BTCs stored and energy required for that. Or is it? I mean the Network is either functional or not. If it is, energy required for online node or whatever is not directly related to the amount of BTC, is't it? Say there are absolute 0 transactions on the network for some time. Does energy required for keeping network stuff online directly depends on the total amount of BTCs?

I mean this energy per BTC metric is kind of energy per allocated megabyte metric in RAM. If RAM usage is low, 1 used meg will have "higher cost", if usage is high, 1 meg will have "lower cost" (from mathematical point of view that is), but essentially RAM needs virtually identical amount of energy to function in both cases, it does not depend on the amount of used memory (at least a lot, perhaps little due some IMC optimizations and shit, let's not dig into details). That's why i find this parameter to be not that useful. Or perhaps I really don't get something...

you are right there is no "direct" dependency.
but if you want to compare it with euro/dollar you have to calulate like this.

to claim bitcoin burns more money on energy compared to euro/dollar is stupid if you compare it correctly.

correctly means: per dollar/euro and per Transaction.

[drakonas777]

Personally I think that first we should calculate how much energy BTC network would need to handle current global amount of electronic money transactions at the same characteristics (speed, service reliability, transfer fee etc etc). And after that, we should compare that value with energy required to maintain all global e-banking infrastructure. And as for now, I couldn't tell which would cost more really, this question requires a lot of calculations.

[qarium]

Personally I think that first we should calculate how much energy BTC network would need to handle current global amount of electronic money transactions at the same characteristics (speed, service reliability, transfer fee etc etc). And after that, we should compare that value with energy required to maintain all global e-banking infrastructure. And as for now, I couldn't tell which would cost more really, this question requires a lot of calculations.

sure. but my point is: all the people in this forum topic who claim it is more power hungry for sure DID NOT DO THIS CALCULATION.