Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userFactors determining maximum energy consumption of Bitcoin miners
61
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Background: During the last years, there has been a lot of discussion and estimations on the energy consumption of Bitcoin miners. However, most of the studies are focused on estimating energy consumption, not in exploring the factors that determine it. Goal: To explore the factors that determine maximum energy consumption of Bitcoin miners. In particular, analyze the limits of energy consumption, and to which extent variations of the factors could produce its reduction. Method: Estimate the overall profit of all Bitcoin miners during a certain period of time, and the costs (including energy) that they face during that time, because of the mining activity. The underlying assumptions is that miners will only consume energy to mine Bitcoin if they have the expectation of profit, and at the same time they are competitive with respect of each other. Therefore, they will operate as a group in the point where profits balance expenditures. Results: We show a basic equation that determines energy consumption based on some specific factors: minting, transaction fees, exchange rate, energy price, and amortization cost. We also define the Amortization Factor, which can be computed for mining devices based on their cost and energy consumption, helps to understand how the cost of equipment influences total energy consumption. Conclusions: The factors driving energy consumption are identified, and from them, some ways in which Bitcoin energy consumption could be reduced are discussed. Some of these ways do not reduce the most important properties of Bitcoin, such as the chances of control of the aggregated hashpower, or the fundamentals of the proof of work mechanism. In general, the methods presented can help to predict energy consumption in different scenarios, based on factors that can be calculated from available data, or assumed in scenarios.
rate research
Read More
Given the importance of public support for policy change and implementation, public policymakers and researchers have attempted to understand the factors associated with this support for climate change mitigation policy. In this article, we compare the feasibility of using different supervised learning methods for regression using a novel socio-economic data set which measures public support for potential climate change mitigation policies. Following this model selection, we utilize gradient boosting regression, a well-known technique in the machine learning community, but relatively uncommon in public policy and public opinion research, and seek to understand what factors among the several examined in previous studies are most central to shaping public support for mitigation policies in climate change studies. The use of this method provides novel insights into the most important factors for public support for climate change mitigation policies. Using national survey data, we find that the perceived risks associated with climate change are more decisive for shaping public support for policy options promoting renewable energy and regulating pollutants. However, we observe a very different behavior related to public support for increasing the use of nuclear energy where climate change risk perception is no longer the sole decisive feature. Our findings indicate that public support for renewable energy is inherently different from that for nuclear energy reliance with the risk perception of climate change, dominant for the former, playing a subdued role for the latter.
Decentralized Finance (DeFi), a blockchain powered peer-to-peer financial system, is mushrooming. One year ago the total value locked in DeFi systems was approximately 700m USD, now, as of April 2021, it stands at around 51bn USD. The frenetic evolution of the ecosystem makes it challenging for newcomers to gain an understanding of its basic features. In this Systematization of Knowledge (SoK), we delineate the DeFi ecosystem along its principal axes. First, we provide an overview of the DeFi primitives. Second, we classify DeFi protocols according to the type of operation they provide. We then go on to consider in detail the technical and economic security of DeFi protocols, drawing particular attention to the issues that emerge specifically in the DeFi setting. Finally, we outline the open research challenges in the ecosystem.
The Bitcoin protocol prescribes certain behavior by the miners who are responsible for maintaining and extending the underlying blockchain; in particular, miners who successfully solve a puzzle, and hence can extend the chain by a block, are supposed to release that block immediately. Eyal and Sirer showed, however, that a selfish miner is incentivized to deviate from the protocol and withhold its blocks under certain conditions. The analysis by Eyal and Sirer, as well as in followup work, considers a emph{single} deviating miner (who may control a large fraction of the hashing power in the network) interacting with a remaining pool of honest miners. Here, we extend this analysis to the case where there are emph{multiple} (non-colluding) selfish miners. We find that with multiple strategic miners, specific deviations from honest mining by multiple strategic agents can outperform honest mining, even if individually miners would not be incentivised to be dishonest. This previous point effectively renders the Bitcoin protocol to be less secure than previously thought.
The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted human activities, leading to unprecedented decreases in both global energy demand and GHG emissions. Yet a little known that there is also a low carbon shift of the global energy system in 2020. Here, using the near-real-time data on energy-related GHG emissions from 30 countries (about 70% of global power generation), we show that the pandemic caused an unprecedented de-carbonization of global power system, representing by a dramatic decrease in the carbon intensity of power sector that reached a historical low of 414.9 tCO2eq/GWh in 2020. Moreover, the share of energy derived from renewable and low-carbon sources (nuclear, hydro-energy, wind, solar, geothermal, and biomass) exceeded that from coal and oil for the first time in history in May of 2020. The decrease in global net energy demand (-1.3% in the first half of 2020 relative to the average of the period in 2016-2019) masks a large down-regulation of fossil-fuel-burning power plants supply (-6.1%) coincident with a surge of low-carbon sources (+6.2%). Concomitant changes in the diurnal cycle of electricity demand also favored low-carbon generators, including a flattening of the morning ramp, a lower midday peak, and delays in both the morning and midday load peaks in most countries. However, emission intensities in the power sector have since rebounded in many countries, and a key question for climate mitigation is thus to what extent countries can achieve and maintain lower, pandemic-level carbon intensities of electricity as part of a green recovery.
Investors tend to sell their winning investments and hold onto their losers. This phenomenon, known as the emph{disposition effect} in the field of behavioural finance, is well-known and its prevalence has been shown in a number of existing markets. But what about new atypical markets like cryptocurrencies? Do investors act as irrationally as in traditional markets? One might suspect this and hypothesise that cryptocurrency sells occur more frequently in positive market conditions and less frequently in negative market conditions. However, there is still no empirical evidence to support this. In this paper, we expand on existing research and empirically investigate the prevalence of the disposition effect in Bitcoin by testing this hypothesis. Our results show that investors are indeed subject to the disposition effect, tending to sell their winning positions too soon and holding on to their losing position for too long. This effect is very prominently evident from the boom and bust year 2017 onwards, confirmed via most of the applied technical indicators. In this study, we show that Bitcoin traders act just as irrationally as traders in other, more established markets.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
