It makes me think of the billions that flooded into fiber optic networks to arbitrage the information asymmetry between markets across geographic areas. Maybe we'll be thanking these defunct Bitcoin farmers for invesing so much into the grid. I know the utilities are forcing the farms to put up all the money to tie into the grid. I guess this goes the same goes for the demand for silicon fab.
Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
551–560 of 578 posts
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No more of a stretch as comparing it to farming or art. Indeed, and that’s precisely my point. The externality problem ought to be addressed directly instead of creating a new regulatory body to decide which goods are “good” and thus allowed to have externalities and which goods are “bad” and thus are banned completely or banned from having externalities.
> The externality problem ought to be addressed directly What does ‘directly’ mean? > instead of creating a new regulatory body to decide which goods are “good” and thus allowed to have externalities and which goods are “bad” and thus are banned completely or banned from having externalities. How would you apply this direct approach to muggings or cigarette companies?
> What does ‘directly’ mean?
Whoever is polluting ought to pay for the damage of that pollution. That’s my view. No different than pouring toxins into the river outside the factory.
> How would you apply this direct approach to muggings or cigarette companies?
Well, I don’t know if there’s a great analogy for muggings. I’m all for going after organized crime, and for local law enforcement for random unorganized robberies. For cigarette companies, well, I’m pretty on board with most or all the regulations they were hit with in the 20th century.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a weird metric. The international space station isn't replacing anything, i still think its valuable.
It has replaced things. You are just ignorant to it. https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/news/15_...
? That's a list of cool new things related to the ISS, not a list of pre-existing things that the ISS has replaced.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get your argument. Bitcoin is very very volatile and just because it went up the last x years, doesn't make it stable or trustworthy. My money in my bank is very safe and it doesn't cost me anything. The inflation itself is a systematic thing and should affect bitcoin equaly. When corona came, i was looking at the stock market and was surprised how many people left it. It doesn't make much sense to distrist t…
> My money in my bank is very safe and it doesn't cost me anything. Your money is safe, your wealth is not. Taking the US as a reference, it is official government policy that if you store your wealth as money then it has a half life of 35 years. > Bitcoin is very very volatile and just because it went up the last x years, doesn't make it stable or trustworthy. I was sneaky in my wording - I'm a gold bug and think Bi…
Supply is only half the inflation calculation, the other half is velocity. That's why the increase in the M2 supply doesn't translate to what you're paying at the grocery store. You've missed half the equation. [1]
[1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/september/wha...
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#555Earlier quoted context omitted.
> My money in my bank is very safe and it doesn't cost me anything. Your money is safe, your wealth is not. Taking the US as a reference, it is official government policy that if you store your wealth as money then it has a half life of 35 years. > Bitcoin is very very volatile and just because it went up the last x years, doesn't make it stable or trustworthy. I was sneaky in my wording - I'm a gold bug and think Bi…
Supply is only half the inflation calculation, the other half is velocity. That's why the increase in the M2 supply doesn't translate to what you're paying at the grocery store. You've missed half the equation. [1] [1] https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2014/september/wha...
I'm not missing anything, I just don't care about the inflation calculation. I'm using gold and the M2.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But that doesn't mean they don't exist - it's a rational premise of valuation. Some times they do and some times they don't. That means it's not a fundamental property for stock valuation. What was the rational premise of valuation behind Gamestop? There was one, but it had little or nothing to do with Gamestop's future earinings.
"That means it's not a fundamental property for stock valuation." Sorry this is not true let me illustrate: If there is a 9/10 chance that the profits will be $1, and a 1/10 chance that it will be $0, then we can value those profits in present terms at $0.9 (Edit: assuming no issues with cost of capital, time value of money etc. i.e. constant real dollars) If we can reasonably calculate the profits and risk, then we…
> If there is a 9/10 chance that the profits will be $1, and a 1/10 chance that it will be $0, then we can value those profits in present terms at $0.9 (Edit: assuming no issues with cost of capital, time value of money etc. i.e. constant real dollars)
Yes, you can do that. You can argue that that's the smart way of doing it. But you don't have to and that's the point.
Elon musk tweets can manipulate the stock market almost at will. There is no profit analysis there, just the mob following Musk.
So again, future profits have nothing to do with a stock valuation. So times it does, but sometimes it doesn't. And if some times it doesn't, then it's not a fundamental property of it.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
"That means it's not a fundamental property for stock valuation." Sorry this is not true let me illustrate: If there is a 9/10 chance that the profits will be $1, and a 1/10 chance that it will be $0, then we can value those profits in present terms at $0.9 (Edit: assuming no issues with cost of capital, time value of money etc. i.e. constant real dollars) If we can reasonably calculate the profits and risk, then we…
> If there is a 9/10 chance that the profits will be $1, and a 1/10 chance that it will be $0, then we can value those profits in present terms at $0.9 (Edit: assuming no issues with cost of capital, time value of money etc. i.e. constant real dollars) Yes, you can do that. You can argue that that's the smart way of doing it. But you don't have to and that's the point. Elon musk tweets can manipulate the stock market…
Saying 'people can or cannot use it means that it's not a fundamental property' -> is not an argument.
Nobody has to use anything to value a stock - including current profits. Therefore even current profits would not be 'a fundamental property'.
And of course, nobody has to use any data or logic when valuing absolutely any financial asset anywhere, ergo - the statement is completely pointless.
Again: we value stock based on it's estimated book value, future earnings and other assessments. We can argue a little bit about all of that, fine, that's why we let the market decide.
BTC is just a fantasy speculation.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there is a 9/10 chance that the profits will be $1, and a 1/10 chance that it will be $0, then we can value those profits in present terms at $0.9 (Edit: assuming no issues with cost of capital, time value of money etc. i.e. constant real dollars) Yes, you can do that. You can argue that that's the smart way of doing it. But you don't have to and that's the point. Elon musk tweets can manipulate the stock market…
Saying 'people can or cannot use it means that it's not a fundamental property' -> is not an argument. Nobody has to use anything to value a stock - including current profits. Therefore even current profits would not be 'a fundamental property'. And of course, nobody has to use any data or logic when valuing absolutely any financial asset anywhere, ergo - the statement is completely pointless. Again: we value stock b…
> Nobody has to use anything to value a stock - including current profits. Therefore even current profits would not be 'a fundamental property'
Correct, so:
> A stock is valued based on the performance of it's actual profit generation.
Is incorrect. The correct sentence should be "Some times stock is valued based on the performance of it's actual profit generation."
> BTC is just a fantasy speculation.
Absolutely, jut like the stock of some companies.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I agree with you on Bitcoin safety (your portfolio is safer because the only thing keeping BTC up is speculation), I don't think you can say the Austrian school is fantasy. It hasn't been attempted and I think deregulation / decentralization of the economy has good chances of getting rid of boom/bust cycles. Without a central bank playing with credit you wouldn't have boom / bust cycles: what's more likely is t…
Boom/bust cycles preceded central banks.
Sure, but the problem was similar: unbacked money printed by banks and used to prop up the economy.
Re: Bitcoin miners are buying power plants
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even easier solution. Tax all the coal that enters your country economy, either from earth or from neighbours.
Burning natural gas, as in the plant referenced by the article, also produces CO2.
Sure, that too. My point is coal and similar resorces don't have many other uses so you can safely tax the resource, mined or umported rather than the act of burning.
And if you have some specific application that you might want to be not affected you might make special tax breaks for it.