Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

forkast.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 128 posts

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#91

Post by latchkey »

maxerickson wrote: post #70
latchkey wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality is that you can't dictate what power is used. Power on a large scale is extremely hard and expensive to transmit. Comments like this do not consider the larger picture. If you plop a mining farm down next to an existing hydro dam that was previously used for powering aluminum smelting, then that farm is now funding the maintenance of that dam. That dam then can provide power to the surrounding community.…

I think most people believe that refining aluminum is a better trade off with environmental harm than securing blockchain. It's fine to disagree of course.

I think _most people_ don't think about either thing.

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#92

Post by latchkey »

foepys wrote: post #80
rorykoehler wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denmark has a population of less than 6 million

This is including industry like aluminum smelting which are basically running their own power plants to work. Aluminum is either used directly or indirectly for everything produced. It's also including households, trains, data centers, etc. Things people actually use to live. Meanwhile with Bitcoin people are just rushing to calculate as much zeros as possible into their hash to append 1 MB of data to a chain.

In the same vein, think about all the infrastructure that was created just to get your comment on my screen.

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#93

Post by [deleted] »

whoknew1122 wrote: post #51
ravenstine wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could be that, and it can also be that people are capable of being massive hypocrites. Nobody who opposes Bitcoin on environmental grounds has anything to say about the sheer waste and pollution that most of us take part in. If Bitcoin is so bad for using as much energy as Argentina, then we should stop using energy to stream entertainment, which we are doing now more than ever.

> "Nobody who opposes Bitcoin on environmental grounds has anything to say about the sheer waste and pollution that most of us take part in." [citation needed] > "If Bitcoin is so bad for using as much energy as Argentina, then we should stop using energy to stream entertainment, which we are doing now more than ever." Until we get off fossil-fuel based electricity, all environmental arguments are going to be based o…

[deleted]

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#94

Post by latchkey »

websites2323 wrote: post #65
latchkey wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this thread from Dan Held was really good: https://twitter.com/danheld/status/1351235080103096331 It starts off with: "1/ Bitcoin’s energy consumption is not “wasteful.” - It is much more efficient than existing financial systems - No one has the moral authority to tell you what is a good or bad use of energy (ex: watching the Kardashians) Let's debunk this FUD"

This thread is full of conflicting logic. For example: “No one has the moral authority to tell you what is a good or bad use of energy” followed by “Bitcoin uses less energy than than banking and the military,” implying that these are “bad” uses of energy — and in fact, that’s the entire foundation of the Bitcoin cult! That Bitcoin is better than Fiat, that it’s the righteous currency because of decentralization/etc.…

As an Atheist, I feel that we should ban people from driving to Church on Sundays because of the waste and pollution that driving creates.

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#95

Post by cinntaile »

pavlov wrote: post #56
aboringusername wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain in your opinion how mining is a "destructive activity" yet before there were plenty of other "destructive activity". Money is destructive, period. And plastic.

There are good examples of countries getting together to shut down destructive activities when market forces were unable to. Bans on leaded gasoline and ozone-depleting CFCs, for example. IMO it would be enough if regulators take action against crypto exchanges. Tax outflows heavily, audit companies located in the EU, track bank transfers received from exchanges outside the EU. Controlling the exit ramps to euros is…

This is not the same situation as your examples though. Here you are basically saying that the resulting pollution from electricity generated to mine bitcoin is worse than other uses of that same electricity. It's a slippery slope if you start to decide what people can use their electricity for. For example. Assume exactly the same energy usage. Why is surfing on HN a better use of that electricity than mining?

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#96

Post by undefined1 »

gnrlst wrote: post #48
exabrial wrote: post #8

I hope we see more Bitcoin mining bans elsewhere. I definitely like digital currencies, but mined currencies need to go.

This is the reason I'm rooting for the underdog DPoS/ORV currencies like Nano. Bitcoin is slow, too expensive to run and is becoming increasingly centralized--the opposite of what it was trying to be.

> DPoS/ORV currencies like Nano

how secure is that? it must be less secure than Bitcoin?

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#97

Post by HeadsUpHigh »

gnrlst wrote: post #48
exabrial wrote: post #8

I hope we see more Bitcoin mining bans elsewhere. I definitely like digital currencies, but mined currencies need to go.

This is the reason I'm rooting for the underdog DPoS/ORV currencies like Nano. Bitcoin is slow, too expensive to run and is becoming increasingly centralized--the opposite of what it was trying to be.

Bitcoin is an asset, not a currency. Like any other assets, it carries it's own risk profile. Nano is more like a currency, but I feel that if we were to move to a blockchain-based solution it would be a huge waste to not include programmable money on the mix, something that Nano doesn't do by design.

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#98

Post by sudosysgen »

aww_dang wrote: post #77
sudosysgen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no market. It has a monopoly, and there are things you aren't allowed to do with the energy. It's not a business, either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydro-Qu%C3%A9bec#Quebec_marke...

There is no Quebec market for energy. What you're reading is someone trying to fit the style distinction local market/export market.

But Hydro Quebec has a total monopoly and zero competition in Quebec, by law. It's not a market.

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#99

Post by [deleted] »

keymone wrote: post #73
andrewflnr wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you didn't mean it quite this way, but: "virtue signalling" is not evil, it's an integral part of human social dynamics, probably since before agriculture. And if you think you never do it, I think you're deluding yourself.

not evil, more like "people jump to conclusion that's easy to stick by instead of spending a few brain cycles to consider why it could be wrong".

[deleted]

Re: China’s Bitcoin miners flee Inner Mongolia ahead of crypto mining ban

#100

Post by sudosysgen »

aww_dang wrote: post #74
sudosysgen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in Québec. We have state run electricty, which turns a profit and isn't subsidized. It's by far the cheapest in North America, and the essentially the cheapest unsubsidized energy in the world. The grid is also 99.9% renewable (everywhere except for some islands) So the idea that price controls and nationalization somehow causes inefficiency in this case is just a tale economists tell themselves. In the real w…

If Quebec is running a profitable business, there's no argument in what I wrote? The most I could say is that there may be unseen costs of nationalization. I.e. it could be cheaper still if privatized, but that is further afield from the discussion. In HN parlance I suppose I could demand that you provide evidence and sources proving the same power stations wouldn't operate more efficiently under private ownership, b…

Replying due to edit : you can claim that a free market could be cheaper. But there are free energy markets right next to Quebec, and costs are around twice as high, so you are arguing against reality.
Post reply on HN