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

TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

asia.nikkei.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 620 posts

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#601

Post by vmception »

kragen wrote: post #514
vmception wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> OK, but those exact same places could power servers instead of miners, taking a load off of wherever the servers are currently hosted. They don't have good internet. Which I wrote earlier. Crypto mining don't need good internet, it barely needs any good internet speed and barely needs decent latency - by design (blockchains allow anything from 2 seconds - 2000 milliseconds - to 10 minutes - 600000 milliseconds - fo…

It's really depressing to me to see heavy downvoting and flagging on the only comments in the thread that explain how coin mining really works.

Yeah this shouldn’t have been flagged, this part of hackernews is very broken for them to inadvertently allow censorship like this

The stackexchange approach would be better here, where certain power users can vote on flagging and you can see who voted on flagging, other users can vote against flagging and even override it

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#602

Post by stouset »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #388
formerly_proven wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Advocates will defend this by saying most energy usage is renewable. Even if true (iirc there is a lot of doubt whether it is, see Iran), it's still moronic, because consuming renewable energy for shits and giggles obviously means that other energy demands are being met with your usual energy mix instead of that renewable energy that went into shits and giggles as assumed. In terms of net emissions it simply doesn'…

Ridding the world of centrally planned currency isn’t shits and giggles. We’re in the midst of the largest wealth transfer in history. Trillions are being given to the wealthy while the poor see their purchasing power wither away. I’m not certain we’ll successfully escape their depraved clutches, but wasting a little electricity is worth the chance.

> Trillions are being given to the wealthy while the poor see their purchasing power wither away.

And you don’t think crypto is contributing to this?

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#603

Post by stouset »

quantumBerry wrote: post #561
spdionis wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd assume some of these massive energy-hungry mining facilities would be fairly hard to hide.

Bitcoin's survival is not predicated on centralized mining facilities.

It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks.

If mining goes down as hardware capabilities go up, it’s only a matter of time before somebody fires up a mining operation for a few days to outcompete the rest.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#604

Post by topspin »

fomine3 wrote: post #558
topspin wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I was hoping things would settle but it doesn't appear to be the case." I've come to the conclusion that it's not going to 'settle' for a long time. Not until competition arrives from new foundries (several years out, although they _are_ being planned and built) and competition from Intel and their GPU platform appears and eventually becomes competitive. So your wait will be a couple years longer. Proof Of Stake wit…

There are many PoW coins other than ETH, but is those price keep high? I think why ETH price high is it's widely used and funtional.

Miners care about profits; how much money can they 'earn' over time. The actual price of the 'coin' is only a factor in that equation.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#605

Post by Consultant32452 »

boudin wrote: post #581
btoiled wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fixed issuance.

I still fail to see how it addresses wealth distribution issues. Crypto currencies are just an asset as any other financial asset. Yes it's decentralised but the only thing it seems to have proved so far is that centralisation might not be an issue in the first place. Since crypto currencies are more of a financial asset than a currency, it's also highly dependent on actual currencies in the end.

Because the powerful people with more crypto than you can't magically issue infinite more crypto and give it to themselves, devaluing the crypto in your wallet.

Classification as an asset is part of the state fighting against crypto currency. It's a non sequitor. If the dollar was deflationary more people would be holding onto it as an asset. But the dollar is intentionally manipulated/inflated so that it's a liability to hold it, therefore people trade it for other asset classes.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#606

Post by Consultant32452 »

stouset wrote: post #602
Consultant32452 wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ridding the world of centrally planned currency isn’t shits and giggles. We’re in the midst of the largest wealth transfer in history. Trillions are being given to the wealthy while the poor see their purchasing power wither away. I’m not certain we’ll successfully escape their depraved clutches, but wasting a little electricity is worth the chance.

> Trillions are being given to the wealthy while the poor see their purchasing power wither away. And you don’t think crypto is contributing to this?

The difference is that the powerful people with a lot of crypto can't unilaterally decide to issue themselves trillions more bitcoins which devalues the few coins held by the poor. Yet this is exactly what happens with the dollar.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#607

Post by quantumBerry »

stouset wrote: post #603
quantumBerry wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin's survival is not predicated on centralized mining facilities.

It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks. If mining goes down as hardware capabilities go up, it’s only a matter of time before somebody fires up a mining operation for a few days to outcompete the rest.

>>Bitcoin's survival is not predicated on centralized mining facilities

>It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks.

This is contradictory. If centralized mining doesn't exist, then by definition a 51% attack by centralized mining doesn't happen.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#608

Post by stouset »

quantumBerry wrote: post #607
stouset wrote: post #603

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks. If mining goes down as hardware capabilities go up, it’s only a matter of time before somebody fires up a mining operation for a few days to outcompete the rest.

>>Bitcoin's survival is not predicated on centralized mining facilities >It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks. This is contradictory. If centralized mining doesn't exist, then by definition a 51% attack by centralized mining doesn't happen.

It doesn't right up until the moment that somebody realizes the reward of profit is worth the risk of operating a mining operation capable of pulling off a 51% attack.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#609

Post by quantumBerry »

stouset wrote: post #608
quantumBerry wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Bitcoin's survival is not predicated on centralized mining facilities >It is if you intend to avoid 51% attacks. This is contradictory. If centralized mining doesn't exist, then by definition a 51% attack by centralized mining doesn't happen.

It doesn't right up until the moment that somebody realizes the reward of profit is worth the risk of operating a mining operation capable of pulling off a 51% attack.

I said Bitcoin's survival was not predicated on centralized mining facility. You seem to be agreeing with me, because your scenario is one of a 51% attack predicated on a large centralized mining facility. You are overlooking the number of actors capable of pulling off illegal mining, and the difficulty in coordinating all of them.

You are acknowledging even under clamp downs, mining will continue. If you think about 30 seconds further, you'll realize it will be widespread and it is likely not just one clever 51% attack hopeful will come up with the bright idea of running an underground mining operation. Prisoner's dillema keeps all the decentralized nodes from colluding (risk losing your mining reward against the hope everyone will stick to the deal and hash a dirty chain). Prisoner's dillema acts the same way against more centralized groups so long as no one of them controls a large portion of the available hashrate.

Basically your statement is "people will pull off scaled mining operations even if illegal, and bitcoins demise is predicated on centralized mining operations" and I agree with you 100%.

If your argument is that Bitcoin is susceptible to a 51% attack, the answer is you are correct and you always have been. It is built into the protocol.

Re: TSMC hikes chip prices up to 20% amid supply shortage

#610

Post by stouset »

quantumBerry wrote: post #609
stouset wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't right up until the moment that somebody realizes the reward of profit is worth the risk of operating a mining operation capable of pulling off a 51% attack.

I said Bitcoin's survival was not predicated on centralized mining facility. You seem to be agreeing with me, because your scenario is one of a 51% attack predicated on a large centralized mining facility. You are overlooking the number of actors capable of pulling off illegal mining, and the difficulty in coordinating all of them. You are acknowledging even under clamp downs, mining will continue. If you think about…

You're playing semantics.

Bitcoin's survival is predicated upon the distributed, cooperating members of the network being willing and able to spend more cycles than any one bad actor.

Prohibition of mining centralized mining tautologically reduces the number of cycles the network is able to cooperatively dedicate toward mining. Whatever the hash rate otherwise would be without a prohibition, once you prohibit and drastically reduce the contribution of centralized mining, it would be drastically less.

But the ability for someone to put together a centralized mining facility is still there, it just carries additional risk. If nobody else is performing centralized mining, the incentives for someone to quietly put together an outfit of their own for the sake of attempting a 51% attack grows. This might be outright illegal, it might be done by a government, or a myriad other possibilities. Either way, it's an order of magnitude easier in that future than it is today for someone to gather the necessary hardware to mount such an attack and turn it on all at once.

> Basically your statement is "people will pull off scaled mining operations even if illegal, and bitcoins demise is predicated on centralized mining operations" and I agree with you 100%.

My statement is "people can pull off scaled-down mining operations even if illegal, but this reduces the effective hashrate; further, other people can pull off scaled-up mining operations in the short term".

Post reply on HN