Bitcoin's mining difficulty has increased by 41.9% over the last 30 days

Post by rockyleal » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 3:40 AM UTC

douche wrote: post #108

feelix wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anywhere in the USA who has to pay USA power prices is going to be at a disadvantage by that alone then. It would seem that locating the hashing equipment to the place with the cheapest power possible would be a logical step when things start to get cut that fine. Unless that could be overcome with clever usage of naturally generated local power (such as solar power).

You'd think Canada would have more major data centers. They've got a lot of extremely cheap hydro power. You could surely lay ultra-high-speed fiber along the same right-of-ways that the transmission lines use. Also, it's cold as hell more often than not, so cooling is less of an issue than putting them out in the desert somewhere.

Post by Jtsummers » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 3:43 AM UTC

rockyleal wrote: post #121

douche wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd think Canada would have more major data centers. They've got a lot of extremely cheap hydro power. You could surely lay ultra-high-speed fiber along the same right-of-ways that the transmission lines use. Also, it's cold as hell more often than not, so cooling is less of an issue than putting them out in the desert somewhere.

Bitcoin miner's dilemma: Should I mine where it's hot for the free solar energy or should I mine where it's cold for the extra refrigeration?

Post by wizeman » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 3:55 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #103

sowbug wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Malice isn't enough. The only special power of a 50% miner is to consistently resolve double-spend attempts in its favor. If this happened, it would surely lower the value of Bitcoin. This, an attacker must be not just malicious but also irrational enough to forfeit the $800,000 in Bitcoin that it creates daily by virtue of its 50% control of the network. (6 blocks/hour x 24 hours/day x 25 bitcoin/block x $450/bitcoi…

Stupid question: if control of 50% of the hash power is so unimportant, why does Bitcoin rely on hash power anyway? Why not simply have a consensus system without proof-of-anything?

Post by burger_moon » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 4:08 AM UTC

neurotech1 wrote: post #93

burger_moon wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After searching around, it looks about average for a large data center. This link[1] estimates Google's data centers require between 50-100MW. 50MW is enough power to supply ~14k homes from different references I've seen. I'm curious about what normal data centers use for backup power since natural gas and diesel generators don't get much bigger than 2MW. Or maybe they just don't have backup generators. [1] http://ww…

They do. Natural Gas fueled generators are practical at 50MW capacity. GE basically sells a 747 engine (CF6) driving a generator, known as the LMS6000 [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Electric_LM6000 [1] http://www.geaviation.com/marine/engines/military/lm6000/

Post by sanswork » Tue, Dec 22, 2015, 4:15 AM UTC

urbanarson wrote: post #59

twic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40MW! For bitcoin! This is nuts!

For comparison, how much power does Visa, Mastercard, the Federal Reserve (and its printing presses), banks, and all of the buildings and employees that work in the traditional financial sector use? Now think about that in every single country on this planet. It's a lot more than 40MW. The Bitcoin network is a steal by comparison.