Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

nysfocus.com

411–420 of 578 posts

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#411
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does so with the same efficiency as a Rube Goldberg machine moves a marble from one place to another.

Efficient or secure. Take your pick.

I"ll hire a few guys with guns, plus auditors. Their ability to maintain no sense of humor beats out your wonky crypto scheme in both regards. Your issue is you don't like the rules that come with the auditors. Those rules have a purpose, and that purpose is tied with sovereign diplomatic interrelation of civic bodies the world over.

Many of whom are expressing great concern over the very thing PoW hastens.

So no, it isn't either or. It's stop jeopardizing the planet in the long term so you can do whatever you're doing now. I don't care that you're doing it, and we can talk civily about the warts of the financial system so it can be tuned to meet your use case better and cone to a compromise; but PoW has the worst set of dysfunctional societal incentives I've seen in my life.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#412
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a trusted party" does not exist at scale.

One such trusted party does exist. It’s a non-profit and it’s called the Stellar Development Foundation. It’s cryptocurrency, the Stellar Lumens (XLM) is trusted well enough to be in the top 15 cryptocurrencies by marketcap. It has years of history to look back at. It doesn’t have a inflation rate (0% inflation rate now + occasional coin-burns). It uses orders of magnitude less electricity than bitcoin because it use…

Is this a press release?

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#413
post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About half is used for jewelry because gold is shiny pebbles. About 10% is used for electronics. Mining Bitcoin consumes 5X as much energy as gold, btw, per unit value extracted. It also requires mining gold to produce the circuit boards used for mining Bitcoin - given the popularity of the ENIG immersion gold plating process for PCB contacts. The secondary issue is that of course each Bitcoin transaction generates 1…

There is a really easy solution for this disaster - a trusted party could run a big relational database that was basically a non-inflating currency and really cheap to run. Except that isn't going to work, because governments are untrustworthy and as history shows will sooner rather than later debase their currency. All people are looking for here is a safe way to store value over time. If governments would let peopl…

In my world view, if you are actively removing wealth from circulation, then it should be disappeared.

But I do agree that it is too hard for the average person to save in the sense of "I will need to withdraw some wealth in the future". The best option out there seems to be ETFs. The dirty secret about the stock market though is that companies don't issue new stock nearly as much as one might think, and therefore the stock market is basically counter-parties playing off each other.

There are plenty of people out there with good, useful ideas and skill sets that really ought to be funded. And no, not all will generate VC like returns.

Figuring out how to link your minor excess now to your needs in the future in a way that isn't a net negative could very well be the defining problem of a generation.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#414
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you spend 8 minutes getting the next chunk of information to your machine, and then another 8 minutes returning the result, it does not matter how fast your machines are or how many of them you have. You're still going to lose to the machines on earth, because the Bitcoin network on earth can already mine blocks faster than 16 minutes. Think of it this way. Say we're running a mile long race by foot, and it takes…

but with bitcoin hashing, you're testing out random hashes to see if it works, and there's an equal chance of finding one for all parties. But if you spend more computational power, you have a higher chance of find one (because you got more tries). Now, a satellite orbiting the sun has 8 mins of latency. Imagine if there was only 1 computer on earth, and 1 computer orbiting, and both "submit", it's the earth computer…

> But they only have 1 machine, and so their chance of finding a valid hash _must_ be half.

No, Bitcoin's network is currently set up to guarantee that a new hash is found in roughly 10 minutes. It's not about how many computers you have in relation to the earth, you need there to be few enough computers on earth and structural enough changes to Bitcoin's technology that it takes the current network on Earth more than 16 minutes to find a hash.

Adding more computers to your orbital array will not change the hash rate on Earth, the network is set up to take the computing power into account and keep the hash rate at about 10 minutes.

Go back to my footrace analogy. What you're currently trying to do is to beat me in a race by getting a progressively faster and faster car, or by introducing 2 cars into the race instead of just 1. None of that matters unless you can get your cars onto the track in less than 10 minutes, because in 10 minutes I will be done with the race and have moved on to the next hash.

You're not pitting your computer network against the earth, you're just pitting it against the latency. You need the on earth hash rate to be slower than 16 minutes, which is not how Bitcoin is currently set up.

> and if that tipping point is greater than 50% of the available hashing power, then you might as well just forge instead of doing it for real...

To be fair, a 51% attack might actually be a feasible idea for your satellite network if you have enough computers there, but it would also come with the fun side effect of making all of your coins useless and crashing the bitcoin bubble.

I suppose the other thing you could maybe do is get so many computers in orbit accepted into the network that you actually drive up the hash difficulty until all of the computers on earth can't solve the problem in 10 minutes; purely because the built-in hashing requirements of Bitcoin become so high that your network's computing power is necessary to finish the transaction in a reasonable time at all. I vaguely suspect you'd need at least close to 50% of the network to do that, but I might be wrong, I haven't done the math.

The downside of that scenario is that you've now raised the hash rate for Bitcoin to 26 minutes, because the 10 minute hash rate is going to stay the same regardless of how many computers are on the network, even if 90% of them are orbiting the sun. But to be fair again, a 26 minute hash rate only matters if you're trying to build a working currency, which pretty much nobody in Bitcoin land seems to care about at this point.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#415
post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a trusted party" does not exist at scale.

One such trusted party does exist. It’s a non-profit and it’s called the Stellar Development Foundation. It’s cryptocurrency, the Stellar Lumens (XLM) is trusted well enough to be in the top 15 cryptocurrencies by marketcap. It has years of history to look back at. It doesn’t have a inflation rate (0% inflation rate now + occasional coin-burns). It uses orders of magnitude less electricity than bitcoin because it use…

Where are you seeing $250 tx fee on btc? Are you in any way related to stellar? Reported

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#416
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me it seems like Bitcoin (and other pow cryptocurrencies) are almost like the climate change scapegoat for a number of social and economic issues that have seemingly come to a head recently to facilitate their rise. People mine because it is expensive, it isn't the other way around, so the real questions we should be asking in good faith are things like "Why it is profitable in the first place?" and I think it is…

I think Bitcoin (and crypto in general) has prooven to be disruptive in many areas (in a negative way) and has yet to deliver any tangible positives that would outweight the negatives. It's basically becoming a unregulated comodity that big money institutions get to gamble with because there is just nowhere to put the money on the market right now. If bitcoin and crypto (ETH, etc.) was just a money dumping speculatio…

ETH is on track to eliminate its hardware disruptions and energy consumption in less than a year.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#417
post #159

It’s a simple equation: So long as there is more money in mining BTC than there is cost in energy to mine it, mining will proceed. No entity in the world can control the price of crypto. But, we can and already do regulate energy production. I think we need a carbon tax, that is specifically a financial disincentive towards any means of energy production that directly pollutes the atmosphere. Seriously, what are the…

To me it seems like Bitcoin (and other pow cryptocurrencies) are almost like the climate change scapegoat for a number of social and economic issues that have seemingly come to a head recently to facilitate their rise. People mine because it is expensive, it isn't the other way around, so the real questions we should be asking in good faith are things like "Why it is profitable in the first place?" and I think it is…

"What about the climate change impact of things that aren't Bitcoin"?`

Literal whataboutism.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any idea can be exaggerated out of sanity bounds. If you do not see the difference between the incentives and criminalizing/punishment this is your own problem.

Criminalizing cryptocurrency was already exaggerated out of sanity bounds.

I think cryptocurrency should be banned. It's provided zero actual value, it's only uses are crime and as a speculative asset. Oh, and as a vehicle for poor Venezuelans to avoid inflation, can't forget about that fantasy.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#419

It’s a simple equation: So long as there is more money in mining BTC than there is cost in energy to mine it, mining will proceed. No entity in the world can control the price of crypto. But, we can and already do regulate energy production. I think we need a carbon tax, that is specifically a financial disincentive towards any means of energy production that directly pollutes the atmosphere. Seriously, what are the…

> we can and already do regulate energy production.

True. If BTCUSD goes to $1m AND you have strict global regulation banning carbon energy, it will be a powerful incentive to harness green energy, which will be good for mankind in the long run.

Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants

#420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A carbon tax would be great, but I don’t know why you think governments couldn’t significantly discourage holding cryptocurrency? A wealth tax on proof-of-work currencies would discourage legitimate businesses (that don’t cheat on taxes) from holding them.

Well that's fine, no legitimate businesses hold them. Seriously. Your suppliers are paid in dollars, your tax burden is in dollars based on the conversion price on receipt. To hold them on receipt is wildly irresponsible speculation, as a business.

I don't know whether you consider Tesla a legitimate business but they're holding bitcoins.

https://www.thestreet.com/crypto/bitcoin/tesla-up-1-billion-...

Post reply on HN