Bitcoin backlash as ‘miners’ stress power grids in Central Washington • Hacker News Board

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

#211

Post by beagle3 » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:38 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #203

bradleyjg wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seemed to have missed the point. There’s nothing to stop an oppressive government from preventing its people from buying bitcoin the same as they prevent them from buying pounds and wiring them to British banks. The dark hints about how any government may become oppressive is a red herring. The issue isn’t that bitcoin isn’t needed because my government isn’t currently oppressive, it’s that bitcoin’s utility in t…

That area of magical thinking just amazes me: look at the Chinese Great Firewall or Erdogan’s Turkey to see how this would actually work. People get arrested for visiting websites or having the wrong app on their phone and there’s no reason to believe that capacity wouldn’t be used the same way. This especially bad for Bitcoin since unlike cash they’d get your full history and quickly deanonymize everyone you know.

This area of magical thinking just amazes me: Look at the recent two years! The big run up in bitcoin value has happened because people were moving money out of China despite capital controls put in place.

Is it still as easy? Probably not, I'm not up to date. Could people who have done that get in trouble for that in the future (thanks to bitcoins long memory)? possibly, if their opsec wasn't top notch and even if it was top-notch but they were unlucky enough to use a mixer that cooperates with the chinese government.

And Erdogan's turkey is also a great example; While the "coup" was happening, it was possible, even easy, to move money out of the country using bitcoin (not so fiat money). Quite a few people left the country afterwards, and many were arrested regardless of phone app. I don't know how many of them took their wealth with them in bitcoin, but they had much easier time doing that than any other way. at the time

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

#212

Post by sireat » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:40 PM UTC

SimbaOnSteroids wrote: post #173

sireat wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shares give you a stake in a productive(hopefully) enterprise, cryptocurrency does not give you anything but a token. This is the problem that Buffett has with cryptocurrencies. When you buy shares in a company you are buying claims to its future earnings at least in theory. Theory being that should the company not serve shareholder needs you can force the company to distribute the earnings/dissolve/merge etc etc. (N…

One: Thank you for helping rationalize that my Magic The Gathering habit isn't a problem. Two: I know you said >Not going into the whole modern abomination to strip lesser shareholders of their rights to vote as Google, Facebook, Snap have done with their tiered stocks However if you want to argue you're problems with crypto (there are many) we need to make arguments using the way things are in the real world. Given…

You might not be better off in either universe but my reply was regarding difference between buying cryptocurrencies and buying shares.

Buying shares is like investing 50k in your Uncle Eddies seashell harvesting venture. In return you receive 50% share in his venture that is you get half of all future seashells harvested by Eddie.

Buying cryptocurrencies is like giving 50k USD to your Uncle Eddie and getting some seashells back but that is it! There is an active market for these seashells and price goes up and down.

However you do not get to claim any more seashells produced by Uncle Eddie.

Buying common shares implies certain rights to some enterprise while buying cryptocurrencies implies nothing.

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

#213

Post by detuur » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

pmorici wrote: post #201

johnm1019 wrote: post #115

I like how it is done by the utility in San Francisco. Depending on the size of your place, and your main method of heating (electric or not), there are tiers setup (based on average weather in each month) where the first X kWh are the cheapest and correspond to what they think a dwelling of that size should need. Then the next Y kWh are about 30% more expensive, then after that there is a final tier which is 60% mor…

The majority of the demand is almost certainly from industrial sized operations in warehouses and not rouge miners overloading residential electrical circuits.

I'd say that's baseless speculation, considering the amount of people who treat bitcoin mining as a grow-op.

Sure, the industrial operations are the ones getting articles and showcases and blog posts, but at the same time I've seen plenty of news articles of police busting some kid for scamming/drug charges and catching him with 100 gpus in his room.

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

#214

Post by ryanlol » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:50 PM UTC

acdha wrote: post #166

ryanlol wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get lots of bitcoin payments. >10 years into Bitcoin there's still no reason for someone to buy in other than speculation This is simply completely wrong, perhaps you should research the subject a little bit more.

Perhaps you could list a legal reason — not the marketing pitch we've all seen for the last decade but something where it makes financial sense to favor it? I’m not saying it can’t be used but just that there aren’t many reasons other than speculation or an ideological stance. If I was, say, the corner coffee shop what would balance out the extra fees, delays, and lack of fraud protection?

>extra fees, delays, lack of fraud protection

It sounds like you are talking about credit cards and not bitcoin.

Compared to credit cards, bitcoin has extremely low fees and fast payments. The fraud protection for merchants is far superior compared to any credit card payment solution.

It seems pretty obvious that most people spreading this kind of bullshit have never actually tried to use bitcoin, and have instead built their knowledge based on forum posts by other uninformed people.

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

#215

Post by iaw » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:56 PM UTC

unpopular42 wrote: post #182

vertex-four wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People expect to be charged for amount used, not capacity, so changing it is very hard.

See the OP. They are not charged the amount used. They are charged some weird function of amount used, the rate it was used at, and their home size.

They are charged based on their amount used relative to their fair allocation.

If they use more than their fair allocation everyone else on the grid is subsidizing them so they get charged more to prevent a subsidy. If they use less than their fair allocation they subsidize other people so they're charged less to prevent subsidy.

The electric grid and the electricity that flows over it is a public utility not a commodity.

Edit: Is unpopular42 a throwaway account that you upvote with your main?

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

#216

Post by paulgb » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:57 PM UTC

russdpale wrote: post #165

acdha wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is all wrong. Many people receive payments and pay in bitcoin. All without having to trust some centralized oracle that cannot, at the end of the day, be trusted. Take a look at what is happening in Venezuela with bitcoin, and you will see why your statement is wrong. The fact bitcoin, an open source project, continues to flourish with some of the brightest minds in computer science ten years after its foundatio…

> Take a look at what is happening in Venezuela with bitcoin

Is anybody actually using Bitcoin as a currency in Venezuela? I can only find references to people mining excessively there because the electricity is so subsidized.

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

#217

Post by rdiddly » Sun, May 27, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

notatoad wrote: post #187

rdiddly wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The government" probably doesn't say it; people who are negatively impacted or forced to take on extra risk because of mining activity are the ones to say something. For example, the electricity provider probably objects precisely when the current you're drawing exceeds the safe limits of their equipment and wiring. If they're particularly on the ball, they at least come investigate as soon as they notice an unusual…

>"The government" probably doesn't say it; The comment I was replying to specifically says they do...

Far as I know, the only applicable laws by which the local govt. might intervene directly would be nuisance laws (noise and such) and zoning laws (trying to separate industrial uses from residential uses). Zoning laws in particular can be as varied as the colors of the rainbow, but the relevant passage would be whichever one tries to define what an industrial land-use activity is. Sometimes it's vague enough that it ends up being decided in court.

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

#218

Post by stordoff » Sun, May 27, 2018, 9:01 PM UTC

Sir_Substance wrote: post #168

acdha wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Amazon accepting the Bitcoin or is that just a way to convert it into real money first? If the seller doesn't know, it doesn't count as Bitcoin usage — just another Visa transaction.

>If the seller doesn't know, it doesn't count as Bitcoin usage — just another Visa transaction. You've got some strong arms on you my friend, moving those goal posts so far so fast. I pay with bitcoin. Stuff arrives in the mail. I am using bitcoin.

If I sell some gold, then use the proceeds to buy from Amazon, I haven't bought anything with gold from Amazon. Yes, you are using Bitcoin, but not to buy from Amazon--it's just another layer on top, it's just another (largely unnecessary) transaction in addition to the existing transaction.

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

#219

Post by stordoff » Sun, May 27, 2018, 9:02 PM UTC

hackerman12345 wrote: post #154

axoltl wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you read the article? I believe it highlights the difference it makes.

It'll force us to fix our infrastructure and be prepared for the future, sounds like a good thing.

Preparing the infrastructure for uses that it was never intended, and most people will never use, doesn't sound like a good thing to me -- it sounds like a waste of money.

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

#220

Post by stordoff » Sun, May 27, 2018, 9:08 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.

I disagree - charging for usage (even if most of your costs come from capacity) incentivises people to use less power, which means you need less grid capacity and reduces externalities (pollution due to generating). If I'm paying for 100A _regardless_, for the things I need to run at peak (say kettle+washing machine+hoover), there's little incentive to reduce my usage at other times (switching lights/devices off when they aren't in use); if I'm paying for usage, there's a very direct incentive to turn things off I'm not using (it's costing me money).