The El Salvador project so far has been quite consistent, especially since I heard that mining uses environmentally friendly energy sources so that companies that have been constrained to enter this segment can learn from the success of El Salvador later.  But we understand each other, why so far it has been difficult to access BTC because of political interests that are not in favor of users so that disinterest can lead to interest.  Even the issue of the pro-Bitcoin El Salvador government is that the government wants to corrupt through this project so that it cannot be traced.

Next week there will be an important hearing at the congress about the Bitcoin’s power usage.

It will be an important event to assess the impact all the reasoning about this topic, much of whose we analysed on this thread, will have on the regulators.

I opened a thread about this:

Congress Hearing On Bitcoin’s Energy Use

I hope that at least someone will see this information in that congressional hearing because even if they have trouble reading, pictures speak more than a thousand words. It seems incredible that as much as 50 000 TWh is lost, and that the energy consumed by BTC is just a drop in the ocean.

over 220TWH/year.... um no.. just no

lets average the hashrate at 180exa for the period (makes math simple)
a. lets use the 110thash asic at 3.25kwh
b. lets use 14thash asic at 1.4kwh
hashrate in thash
180000000

a. asics running      
1636363.636   
power draw per hour
5318181.818   kwh
   5318.181818   mw/hour
   5.318181818   gw/hour
   127.6363636   gwh/day  (above * 24)
   46587.27273   gwh/year (above * 365)
   46.58727273   twh/year

so that is 46.58twh.. not 200

b. asics running      
12857142.86   
18000000   kwh
   18000   mw/hour
   18      gw/hour
   432      gwh/day
   157680   gwh/year
   157.68   twh/year

so that is 157.68twh.. not 200

because the 158 is the least efficient asic
because the 47 is the most efficient asic

the number is somewhere in between
im guessing that the amount of farms still using old tech(s914thash from 2016-17 is now obsolete(most migrated during the bsv purge of 2018 where many were sold or destroyed. giving opportunity for the s17 range to be used and then later the s19 range))
id say the number now is far far far closer to 47. and way below 158.. certainly not anywhere near 200

lets pretend every asic was the old tech s9 at the 158TW i mathed out..
basically its a difference of about 28%. so to achieve a 220TWH consumption for the year entails needing a hashrate 28% higher than the 180exa i averaged. meaning the hashrate would need to be a constant 250exahash for the whole year to then 'spend' 220 twh for the year

lets pretend every asic was current tech s19 pro at the 47TW i mathed out..
basically its a difference of about 79%. so to achieve a 220TWH consumption for the year entails needing a hashrate 79% higher than the 180exa i averaged. meaning the hashrate would need to be a constant 842exahash for the whole year to then 'spend' 220 twh for the year

emphasis my facepalm...   220 twh!!(facepalm) sorry folks but thats just not what is happening in reality

..
if i would have a guess. i would say they want to say a huge artificial number now(220). so that it immunises the politics to how small that number is compared to world wide other industries while also allowing for 0.3x(oldtech)-4.6x(newtech) growth without actually going over a 220twh (because shhh dont tell anyone, the 220 is inflated as a buffer)

my numbers were based in a high average of 180exa (more relating to their Q4 end of year average). but taking the actual hashrate of the 365 days its more like 160exa average, so the electric rate is a few TWH less.

but yea 0.0X% or 0.YY% of consumption is still low which is why i dont think the BMC minded using 220 inflated number


well the way my cynical mind works
i imagine the BMC telling governments "bitcoin WASTES 220TWH". get them to implement a green bill. then go back to them and say, ok we have changed the industry, we now only consume 50TWH, now give us our green grants for complying by reducing TWH by 4x

much like the BMC is pretending that only 56% of asic farms in the US were set up in renewable area's. where as its been a known detail even as far as 2014 that asic farmers actually set up in renewable area's on purpose.
EG 90% of chinese asic farms were in renewable area's but the BMC said last year that china is only <20% renewable so pretended that chinese miners were only <20% renewable

all done so later they can be audited and seen as actually being more like 90% and tick a 'green box' to get grants awarded

I know I'm a little late to this thread, but I want to express my opinion about this matter which is truly important to discuss. I don't like to support something that goes against my moral temperament.

Does Bitcoin use much energy? Yes, it does. The security of Bitcoin and its environmental footprint vary analogously. When there's a rise in difficulty, it means more energy is used to strengthen the network.

According to the above statement it'd be logical to conclude that Bitcoin is not environmentally friendly. However, this is really not the case. It indeed is. It's an innovation in which the people try to find the least expensive sources of energy. It happens to be renewable. So, it incentivizes you to not harm the environment. And it turns out that the transition is easy. More than 50% of the hashes are green. Which part of the banking system uses renewable sources? Definitely not that much, even if they aren't comparable.

The world tries to transit to cheaper energy, not necessarily renewable. Remember: Humans want incentives. Every action they take is based on those either consciously or not. Morally-wise it's good to have voluntary incentives, but there should always be an incentive.

It happens for the renewable sources to be extremely cheap compared to non-renewable ones, fortunately.

this Mica thing was not to be implemented until 2025. so its not a delay. its just a 'we dont need to decide yet'
they have until late 2024 to implement it. and always had until late 2024 to implement it.

meaning this stuff will keep popping up now and again until 2024 without it causing any 'delays'

that said.
i believe that the analytics sites that hyper inflated the TWH usage as 200THW and 58.6% renewable(actual numbers more like 40TWH and 75%+),
and they done so. so that next year they can redo the numbers and show a drop down to say 190TWH, then in 2024 a further drop to 180TWH
while increasing the renewable to 65% 75%  
to pretend they physically helped make bitcoin greener. where its actually just a number shuffle on paper to later appease any environmental concerns that they first advertised as a bad disaster.

its like shouting out that a orange is a acidic fruit that can damage health (we know its actually a health fruit from the start) and then later pretend they done something to an orange to make it a health fruit, to then release a report of its health benefits. pretending they triggered a revolution in fruit. where reality is the fruit remained a fruit and all that changed was the report

truth is bitcoin is not as bad as the analytics chosen to advertise.

i meant that the mica has been "in progress" since 2019. with a date of actual implementation in 2025. meaning this announcement is not causing any actual delay to the 2025 time table. and if they just keep announcing 'no decision' for the next 2 years, it changes nothing to the schedule plan.

EG if the implementation was for feb2023.. well. then they would have needed to adjust the implementation date to allow a years grace before it becomes active after a later vote. but because they have until 2025 anyway. they  can reconsider many times until 2024

there may be another opportunity to vote in april2022. but that too can be reconsidered. point being they can keep it 'in progress' for 2 years and not be deemed as 'stalling'/delaying

we can all hope they remove certain parts and vote it in, in april2022 without the bans..so we can be at ease of expectation of 2025
 or they can keep it up in the air like a smoggy cloud for 2 years keeping the 'possibility' of a ban existing

I like this thread so much, and I just like the fact that someone took out his or her time to make a thread like this that debunks most, if not all, of the accusations that critics have been using against Bitcoin over the years. I didn’t waste time when I saw this thread and went through it.

The first thing I just did was to bookmark it, because a few times I have came across those critics who are always trying to put Bitcoin down and for sure I have done my best to defend it the way I can, but it good to have all these references to quote from and also show to anyone that tries make false statements about Bitcoin, because I am really tired of people who keeps on spreading fake news, when they are not sure of it.