{"id":11931,"date":"2022-06-29T21:38:59","date_gmt":"2022-06-29T21:38:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nftandcrypto-news.com\/crypto\/banking-uses-56-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin-valuechain-report\/"},"modified":"2022-06-29T21:39:01","modified_gmt":"2022-06-29T21:39:01","slug":"banking-uses-56-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin-valuechain-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nftandcrypto-news.com\/crypto\/banking-uses-56-times-more-energy-than-bitcoin-valuechain-report\/","title":{"rendered":"Banking uses 56 times more energy than Bitcoin: Valuechain report"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
Fresh figures on Bitcoin\u2019s (BTC) energy consumption, efficiency and scalability serve to expose the banking sector while bathing the world’s largest cryptocurrency in a new light.\u00a0<\/p>\n
A research report published by Michel Khazzaka, an IT engineer, cryptographer and consultant, calculates\u00a0that Bitcoin payments are a “million times more efficient” than the legacy financial system. Plus, the banking sector \u201cuses 56 times more energy than Bitcoin.\u201d<\/p>\n
The report compiles almost four years of research and suggests a new calculation for estimating Bitcoin’s proof-of-work energy consumption. In an interview, Khazzaka told Cointelegraph:<\/p>\n
\u201cBitcoin Lightning, and Bitcoin, in general, are really great and very efficient technological solutions that deserve to be adopted on a large scale. This invention is brilliant enough, efficient enough, and powerful enough to get mass adoption.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Khazzaka, who founded payments consultancy Valuechain in late 2021, proposes an alternative to the energy estimates provided by Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index (CBECI). The index, often cited by Cointelegraph, estimates that Bitcoin consumes roughly 122 TW\/H per year. <\/p>\n
Taking into account the average lifespan of Bitcoin mining machines as well as the rate at which new IT materials are created, Khazzaka suggests that Bitcoin consumes 88.95 TWh per year, considerably less than Cambridge’s estimate.<\/p>\n