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

121–128 of 128 posts

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

#121

Post by Bakary »

keymone wrote: post #118
Bakary wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These arguments often take the form of [complaint about Bitcoin not working] → [sardonic counter about Bitcoin working despite the nay-sayers] A better way to frame the problem IMO is that if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one So you have a lose-lose proposition for late adopters, with collectivized c…

first, those were not the arguments in form "complaint about Bitcoin not working", those were attempts to rebutt my earlier statements why it's erroneous to view bitcoin in context of environmental issues. > if Bitcoin works as intended, it will only serve to create a new elite of early adopters that will be even more massively powerful than the traditional one sure, early adopters will reap some benefits, but it's l…

I'm not singling out bitcoin. In fact the London real estate is a good analogy to crypto.

You have people with London properties getting super excited and people with no such properties not getting excited at all. Both are right. A handful of previously poor people manage to get a property thanks to being in the right place at the right time or some other improbable condition, but most don't. Many participants in the market are already massively wealthy. Overall, nothing makes it plausible for the property market to be meaningfully called an engine for the redistribution of wealth

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

#122

Post by bingbong70 »

bjeds wrote: post #119
cinntaile wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems unlikely. Big mining operations are already structured as corporations and taxed on their profits. Electricity is already heavily taxed in many countries in the EU. As long as it doesn't pose a threat to the electricity net there is no reason to single out bitcoin for energy use, it's not like the energy is different.

Do you live in Europe? If you don't then what you say make some sense, but the European Union think differently. The EU ban things all the time. For example: inefficient vacuum cleaners banned: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41119355 Light bulbs banned (this didn't originate from the EU, but the EU were early) High watt hair dryvers banned https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/1106153... Single use…

Banning cutting edge fintech from Europe is basically choosing to go back into the dark ages... This talent/capital will relocate quite easily.

Bonus, Bitcoin makes capital flight and regulatory arbitrage much easier. Hostile governments will pay a large penalty.

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

#123

Post by cinntaile »

bjeds wrote: post #119
cinntaile wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems unlikely. Big mining operations are already structured as corporations and taxed on their profits. Electricity is already heavily taxed in many countries in the EU. As long as it doesn't pose a threat to the electricity net there is no reason to single out bitcoin for energy use, it's not like the energy is different.

Do you live in Europe? If you don't then what you say make some sense, but the European Union think differently. The EU ban things all the time. For example: inefficient vacuum cleaners banned: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-41119355 Light bulbs banned (this didn't originate from the EU, but the EU were early) High watt hair dryvers banned https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/1106153... Single use…

Yes I live in the EU. The difference is that there is a more efficient alternative available, this is not the case here.

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

#124

Post by websites2323 »

latchkey wrote: post #94
websites2323 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bring your data and let’s have at it. How much energy does it use? What function does your alleged waste serve that is already served elsewhere in society?

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

#125

Post by sudosysgen »

aww_dang wrote: post #120
sudosysgen wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's playing a bit fast and loose with the definition of "free market". Hydropower is also geographically unique.

Hydropower is not geographically unique, there are many US states (and Chinese provinces) which use mainly hydropower.

If you think that I am overextending the term free market, then you must agree that there are no energy free markets? There are two options here. Either there are, and they are all suboptimal to at least some state run solutions, or they don't exist, in which case my argument still applies.

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

#126

Post by klmadfejno »

latchkey wrote: post #50
klmadfejno wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if bitcoin just starts consuming renewable power, causing other use cases to make up the difference in coal power.

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.…

> The reality is that you can't dictate what power is used.

Inner Mongolia thinks otherwise apparently.

for the rest of it... I don't find that especially compelling. This feels like the definition of cherry picking specifics against a general problem.

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

#127

Post by aww_dang »

sudosysgen wrote: post #125
aww_dang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's playing a bit fast and loose with the definition of "free market". Hydropower is also geographically unique.

Hydropower is not geographically unique, there are many US states (and Chinese provinces) which use mainly hydropower. If you think that I am overextending the term free market, then you must agree that there are no energy free markets? There are two options here. Either there are, and they are all suboptimal to at least some state run solutions, or they don't exist, in which case my argument still applies.

>Hydropower is not geographically unique

Yes, many places have hydropower. Some have more than others. There are also population, consumption concerns relative to the supply. The Wikipedia article notes that the Quebecois authorities subsidize aluminum smelters with a goal of job creation. Perhaps the market price could be even cheaper without this subsidy?

Electricity markets are generally highly regulated, public-private partnerships or outright nationalized. I don't see a dispute here or an argument.

Observing that something is commonplace isn't a rationalization of the efficiency or morality of the practice.

>you are arguing against reality.

This isn't helpful. Different individuals have different observations, experiences, perceptions and thus opinions. That's healthy. It is the source of discussion. Would it be helpful if I characterized this turn of phrase as you arguing for an exclusive license on "reality"?

No, I don't think that would advance the discussion at all, but it would be equivalent to what you've offered in my view.

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

#128

Post by louloulou »

websites2323 wrote: post #124
latchkey wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bring your data and let’s have at it. How much energy does it use? What function does your alleged waste serve that is already served elsewhere in society?

Creating a global sound money that won't be debased or censored. More than worth the electricity cost. Why do you want to forcefully stop people who voluntarily buy and use electricity to update a shared database? Just because you don't like it?
Post reply on HN