Bitcoin backlash as ‘miners’ stress power grids in Central Washington

Post by unpopular42 » Sun, May 27, 2018, 6:49 PM UTC

vertex-four wrote: post #152

unpopular42 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you like it? To me it sounds stupid, it's the same electricity, it costs the same to produce and all other side effects effects like network load or pollution are the same too. Why first X units would cost less? Even more idiotic is that it apparently depends on the size of your house, so if you have a larger home, you get more cheap electricity.

It does not cost the same amount to distribute different amounts of energy, as a matter of fact. If you build infrastructure capable of handling a certain amount of electricity plus some overhead, you want to disincentivise eating into that overhead before you can build better infrastructure.

Post by acdha » Sun, May 27, 2018, 6:50 PM UTC

bdcravens wrote: post #159

acdha wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's weird, I've been using it to buy stuff off amazon and aliexpress. How? Neither company seems to accept Bitcoin directly.

Purse.io lets you buy from Amazon

Post by russdpale » Sun, May 27, 2018, 6:52 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #142

josu wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment applies to any revolutionary technology. Let's substitute cryptocurrencies with "the internet" in 1999: - people trading 'stocks' in the same way Pokemon / WWF kids trade cards. - thinking this is actually a long-term 'investment' strategy (well its idiots trading with each other ...) - to top it off, siphoning off capital and giving a load of shitty excuses 'it could be like Detroit at the beginning of…

The difference is that the Internet had clear useful applications at that point and billions of dollars in real business (not just speculation) was happening annually. Yes, there were plenty VC misfires with no plausible path to profitability — my favorite was cement.com, with free shipping! — but there were tons of existing businesses finding significant value from it and new companies like Amazon, eBay, Travelocity…

Post by jsjohnst » Sun, May 27, 2018, 6:54 PM UTC

Rjevski wrote: post #135

jsjohnst wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mining is very peaceful Until you factor in the risk of fire, environmental impact, and the fact that when bitcoin goes bust which will ultimately happen (nothing lasts forever), the county will be left holding the bag in a similar fashion to other major industries of old.

> risk of fire Is it actually riskier than a resident living in the same place? I don’t think so. A faulty mining installation would catch fire early on, and if that doesn’t occur then it’s mostly safe. A resident on the other hand would be using risky appliances every day (cooker, oven, heating, hair dryer, etc), which combined with the potential human error, seems like a bigger risk. > environmental impact How does…

Post by vertex-four » Sun, May 27, 2018, 6:55 PM UTC

unpopular42 wrote: post #161

vertex-four wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not cost the same amount to distribute different amounts of energy, as a matter of fact. If you build infrastructure capable of handling a certain amount of electricity plus some overhead, you want to disincentivise eating into that overhead before you can build better infrastructure.

If this was the case, it would make sense to charge for capacity, not for usage. Like, if you ever want to use more than X amps of electricity, you have to pay for upgraded wires and stuff. Doesn't explain charging less for first X units per month.