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

US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#81

Post by rokkitmensch »

reaperman wrote: post #77
ThisIsMyAltAcct wrote: post #2

This is the form that miners allege will cause them irreparable injury and has cost them 40 hours to fill out: https://www.eia.gov/survey/form/eia_862/form.pdf

It's also a terrible form. It boils down to just 2 important questions: * Mining Electric Load: (in MW) * Mining Hash Rate: (in TH/s) But it doesn't have a place to specify which cryptocurrency is being mined. Each have a very different hash rate on the same hardware. So this "emergency" data will be useless even if they do collect it.

This is also the fundamental unit of business performance that everyone would hate to leak. I'm sure it'll be in great hands with USG regulators!

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#82

Post by calamari4065 »

alchemist1e9 wrote: post #69
singleshot_ wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lovely language. Bitcoin isn’t “coming,” it’s here and it’s a nightmare. People lose money down this drain every day and there’s next to no way to get it back. A serious transnational criminal problem that must be addressed and if the government wants to keep tabs on who profits from this, that’s be great.

Your assumptions couldn’t be more misguided. It’s glaringly obvious you’re part of the collectivist, statist, authoritarian crowd, like so many out there. But here’s the kicker: Bitcoin, with its Proof of Work (PoW) marvel, is cutting through the tyranny of your majority like a hot knife through butter. Bitcoin is already outperforming the sluggish efforts of the IMF and World Bank, breathing life into renewable ener…

I need you to understand something. This comment is so utterly unhinged that it's either parody or something you take way, way too seriously. This is a caricature of the prototypical bitcoin bro that everyone makes fun of. Nonsense like this is the exact reason that people mock and dismiss cryptobros.

You seem to not understand that someone can disagree with you without it being some grand conspiracy or authoritarian cabal. It is infinitely more likely that people disagree because they think you're a moron. People think you're a moron because you act like one. Spouting off about conspiracies and cabals and you've somehow pulled Obama into it?

You aren't being dismissed because the big bad communists want to steal your bitcoins. You're being dismissed because you're pasting nine whole paragraphs of absolute insane ramblings.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#84

Post by alchemist1e9 »

calamari4065 wrote: post #82
alchemist1e9 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your assumptions couldn’t be more misguided. It’s glaringly obvious you’re part of the collectivist, statist, authoritarian crowd, like so many out there. But here’s the kicker: Bitcoin, with its Proof of Work (PoW) marvel, is cutting through the tyranny of your majority like a hot knife through butter. Bitcoin is already outperforming the sluggish efforts of the IMF and World Bank, breathing life into renewable ener…

I need you to understand something. This comment is so utterly unhinged that it's either parody or something you take way, way too seriously. This is a caricature of the prototypical bitcoin bro that everyone makes fun of. Nonsense like this is the exact reason that people mock and dismiss cryptobros. You seem to not understand that someone can disagree with you without it being some grand conspiracy or authoritarian…

Your command to "understand" is delightfully authoritarian, a classic hallmark of the traffic cop mentality. It's as if my non-conformity offends you on a personal level. Labeling me as "unhinged" is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction to cognitive dissonance; you're confronted with a narrative that challenges your deeply ingrained respect for authority and, finding no rebuttal, resort to ad hominem attacks.

It's amusing how seriously you insist Bitcoin cannot be taken, despite it now commanding 1% of energy supplies in numerous locales and the cryptocurrency market cap reaching $2T. This isn't a fad; it's a serious economic revolution. Were those of us who believed from the start, including luminaries like Timothy C May, Intel's chief scientist, all "morons"? Or is the true folly in dismissing what you fail to comprehend, resorting to juvenile labels like "cryptobros"?

You accuse me of spouting conspiracy theories, yet I've merely stated historical and economic facts. The founding of the Bank of England for waging war, the inherent violence of fiat currencies leading to confiscation and inflation crises worldwide—these are not conspiracies, they are realities that you choose to ignore.

Your dismissal stems from a place of fear, not superiority. Governments and their conformist, collectivist, and statist cheerleaders fear Bitcoin because it represents a fundamental shift in power dynamics. Your attempts to ban or discredit it only underscore its resilience and anti-fragility.

As for communists or any government's ability to "steal" Bitcoin, you misunderstand the very essence of this technology. Bitcoin represents a shift away from the state's monopoly on violence and financial control. And yes, Obama's apprehension about Bitcoin granting every citizen a "Swiss bank account in their pocket" speaks volumes—not about the feasibility of stopping Bitcoin, but about the threat it poses to centralized control.

Call me unhinged, a conspiracy theorist, or whatever else makes you sleep better at night. But I challenge you, find one "conspiracy" in what I've said. Your discomfort isn't with the truth of my words; it's with the realization that your worldview might be the actual house of cards.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#85

Post by balderdash »

babypuncher wrote: post #36
charonn0 wrote: post #8

As I read it[1], the plaintiffs allege that the government has overstepped its authority by using emergency powers to make new demands for information under threat of prosecution. There is a plausible argument for that position, and so a TRO is appropriate while the questions are resolved. [1]: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24440902-cryptoenerg...

Another case of something being done for the right reason, but in the wrong way because our legislative branch refuses to lift a finger.

I’m generally of the same mind - but on the other hand if there isn’t consensus on certain policies at the national level isn’t inaction actually the right outcome?

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#86

Post by Canada »

bitfilped wrote: post #13
Canada wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's big and extremely invasive, and asks questions that are none of the government's business, and definitely none of that agency's business. The form claims it should only take 30 minutes to complete. Laughable. It's 26 pages, and it's not simple, and it begins with a threat that being incorrect is a criminal offense.

The stability and security of energy generation in the US is in fact the DOE's business.

Then why is the first question fishing for info about what proof of stake validators are present? Why would they need to know the ages of the equipment?

This is very obviously not about what they claim it is about.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#87

Post by babypuncher »

balderdash wrote: post #85
babypuncher wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another case of something being done for the right reason, but in the wrong way because our legislative branch refuses to lift a finger.

I’m generally of the same mind - but on the other hand if there isn’t consensus on certain policies at the national level isn’t inaction actually the right outcome?

The problem is that there usually is consensus that something should be done, especially among the public. But political infighting in congress over the last ~15 years stops any meaningful legislation from ever making it to the President's desk. Congress has been effectively abdicating more and more of their power to the executive branch.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#88

Post by AnimalMuppet »

babypuncher wrote: post #87
balderdash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m generally of the same mind - but on the other hand if there isn’t consensus on certain policies at the national level isn’t inaction actually the right outcome?

The problem is that there usually is consensus that something should be done, especially among the public. But political infighting in congress over the last ~15 years stops any meaningful legislation from ever making it to the President's desk. Congress has been effectively abdicating more and more of their power to the executive branch.

And maybe that's a good thing? The consensus that something should be done is dangerous. It leads to "something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done", which is terribly flawed logic that leads to terrible things being done.

If all the proposals are brain-dead stupidity, then refusing to pass one is actually Congress doing their job.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#89

Post by unethical_ban »

bequanna wrote: post #70
unethical_ban wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Farmers should be subject to monitoring on disproportionate use of vital resources. Such as alfalfa farms that are a backdoor to export US groundwater to China.

Groundwater is regulated at the state level, correct?

I believe so. I was speaking generally.

Re: US judge halts government effort to monitor crypto mining energy use

#90

Post by balderdash »

babypuncher wrote: post #87
balderdash wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m generally of the same mind - but on the other hand if there isn’t consensus on certain policies at the national level isn’t inaction actually the right outcome?

The problem is that there usually is consensus that something should be done, especially among the public. But political infighting in congress over the last ~15 years stops any meaningful legislation from ever making it to the President's desk. Congress has been effectively abdicating more and more of their power to the executive branch.

It’s super clear they’re abdicating their responsibility and creating a stronger executive (like not passing a budget with this nonsense continuing resolution stuff).

But the public wanting something is easy to get people to agree to that they want something (better schools, better healthcare, less crime, etc.) is pretty easy, how that is accomplished (including how it’s paid for) is incredibly hard (take education does that mean: school vouchers, charter schools, bigger budgets, school testing, performance expectations for teachers, union rules, etc.?)

Post reply on HN