But we still have no math, just data pulled from a site with no data to back it up, that I could see anyway.
" Any currencies that had conflicting KWh published in different sources were extensively cross referenced with the goal of seeing which number repeated itself the most in order to present accurate data. "
Are you seriously claiming that the numbers are not close enough to draw a conclusion that Chia is not orders of magnitude more energy efficient than BTC? How about you show your math? I don’t care to try to explain to you any further. You do the math if you don’t believe the data that is currently available.
I never disputed any of that did I?
I wanted to see the math on this supposed $100 per transaction in power cost, as I thought that seemed a bit high. No more, no less.
Anything else you think I was debating is in your mind alone.
Using that ChiaStatus.com, my understanding is that with the current transaction load, and network size, it is about 15 kWh per transaction (0.3 tWh / year, and 2k trans / hour), so not sure whether I made a mistake somewhere, or that first document is rather obsolete or used different assumptions. Still, it doesn’t change trends that much.
Of course, I don’t know what will happen in a year (or rather tomorrow), but at least to me, I really don’t care that much about transactions cost or greater decentralization, but rather whether my farming efforts are in black or red.
Also, assuming that the first document (with transaction costs) is correct, and that high power usage per transaction for BTC is that high, BTC is still the most successful coin, and is not harmed by that. So, I have really no idea how to factor transaction cost in anything that I/we do with respect to Chia. (Sure, it looks like engineering wise superior.)