I've been waiting 3 months to make this post
The Cambridge (CCAF) data on Bitcoin has these issues
1. energy consumption (20.6% overstated)
2. emission intensity (69.4% overstated)
3. sustainable energy mix (39.9% understated)
4. emissions (106% overstated)
Key reasons:
* miner-map 17 months out of date (puts Kazakhstan at 13% of hashrate, whereas its currently <1%. Other issues)
* mining dataset is non-representative and non-extensive (excludes the 52% of the network, who use 64.7% sustainable energy sources)
* offgrid mining not measured (28% of network, who our analysis shows use 78% sustainable-energy sources)
Conclusion:
We shouldn't be using the CCAF models of the Bitcoin Network until their model limitations are fixed. To their credit, they are aware of the limitations, and have always been transparent about them on their website.
I've been working with Luxor, Blockware and over 30 miners over the last few months to build an up-to-date model based on the Network's current miner-mix, mining map and energy sources
That work is now done.
If you want to dive into the weeds, you can find all the data, calcs, methodologies and analysis here
1. Emissions and emissions intensity
https://batcoinz.com/accurately-dynamically-calculating-bitcoin-network-emissions/
here
2. Energy Consumption
https://batcoinz.com/improving-our-estimate-of-bitcoin-energy-consumption/
and here
3. Sustainable energy mix
These 3 articles together contains the source data for the pretty charts that #[0] and I got together to put together recently when he was over in NZ.
