Re:Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached
by viraptor on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @03:04AM
(#25196313)
Yes, I'm choosing the case where the price is too high, because most people rely on energy being available and that's why there's a number of laws (depending on the country) that protect from disconnection. In practical terms, I prefer my freezer not to stop working and spoil stored food rather than having universal world currency which fluctates less.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached
by beaner on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @03:32AM
(#25196472)
Then we shouldn't have an issue, since I explained how such a system would continue to provide in that case.
Re:Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached
by viraptor on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @03:43AM
(#25196531)
Why would anyone run an energy storage system for general population in that system? If they can undercut the energy companies at some times and sell to the Bitcoin miners, why would they even bother with residential customers?
Sure, people who can afford energy storage themselves would be sorted. (Most of the time) Anyone below that wealth threshold would be at the mercy of "am I more important than the monetary gain today".
Re:Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached
by beaner on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @04:06AM
(#25196647)
Because it would be profitable, that's how markets work.
Re:Ethereum 2.0 – Minimum deposit reached
by viraptor on Tuesday November 24, 2020 @04:22AM
(#25196741)
It could be profitable. But miners will buy energy as long as the price is lower than the expected return, regardless if it comes from excess renewable or from storage, do it may be more profitable not to. This means a bidding market between the miners and tenants for the stored energy. And that's not the uncertainty I want to live with every day. (Because that market is no longer realistically possible to regulate given the energy producers become the bank, the mint, and the business running them)