Re:The problem with Bitcoin miners
by eternityforest on Monday May 16, 2022 @08:08PM
(#31404530)
Bitcoin mining also enables keeping coal plants online that would otherwise be totally shut down.
I'm not sure how separation of money and state works. If you have taxes, they're not really all that separate. If you don't have taxes, you can't have much of a state, can you?
Most crypto types seem to want very low or zero taxes, it's unclear how social programs and large scale infrastructure is going to work.
1. Rejected energy is not surplus energy, but instead energy lost through inefficiencies in its production or use. How does bitcoin use this energy?
2. No argument there, energy price is one of the main costs in a mining op.
3. This seems like a minor win. What happens to these plants when the miner moves to a new region? They’ll become unprofitable again and shutdown. Which means waste again.
I'd also like to point out that:
1. Most of the energy generated today is lost because it is unused. This is called "rejected energy". Having the option to not let so much energy get rejected is an efficiency gain for us, and should be prioritised before we shut down manufacturing and services because of energy use/emissions.
2. Mining is done at the knife's edge of margin cost. Lots of miners buy energy from suppliers at severely discounted prices (due to lack of demand) and scale up and down depending on the supply of energy. The days that you need to keep your miner online and hashing for 24/7 have passed us by years ago. These days, even an S9 miner can still be profitable if you have near-free electricity at your disposal.
3. Bitcoin mining enables the construction of renewable power plants in locations that are currently unaffordable to build.