Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.forth > #27863

Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check.

Show all headers | View raw

On Mon, 13 Jan 2014 07:32:38 -0500, Albert van der Horst  
<albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> In article <op.w9l7ugxd5zc71u@localhost>,
> Rod Pemberton <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2014 10:18:17 -0500, Albert van der Horst
>> <albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote:

<OT: Bitcoins>

>>> With the current state of affairs a bitcoin is
>>> approximately worth the expense in energy consumption to
>>> generate it.
>>
>> FYI, that assumption is only true you're paying an "expense
>> in energy consumption" to someone else in the first place...
>>
>> I.e., if you're generating your own power cost effectively, e.g.,
>> highly efficient diesel generator or solar power generation, or
>> you're generating power at wholesale prices instead of retail,
>> you could maximize that energy's value by mining.
>>
>> As long as you're paying someone else for power and paying
>> someone else for special processing circuitry, you're unlikely
>> to recover your financial inputs, at least currently and
>> into the future.  One or both of those costs needs to be made
>> neglible to make a profit.
>
> You say nothing new. Of course standard economic laws apply.
>

You said nothing new either.  I've seen at least four articles
saying a Bitcoin can no longer be mined for less than it's worth.

>>> There is special hardware to do 300 GigaHash/second at 175 Watts.
>>> Not even considering whether it is even possible to harness
>>> the GA144 to arrive at this level of bulk performance, lets
>>> look at the energy picture.
>>
>> If you were able to (legally) obtain a large quantity of processors
>> without paying much for them, and you have a cheap source of
>> electricity, and/or you have a cheap supply of cooling, i.e.,
>> iceberg or a mine or caves, then it's at least worth looking into
>> Bitcoin mining for profit.  That's assuming their value will
>> continue to increase, which may happen, but is doubtful.
>
> If you're clever enough to get the gold that is present in
> seawater you'll be rich. So ?

If you're clever enough to get the salt that is present in
seawater you'll be very rich too.  So?

Both salt and pure water are valuable too.  Both our suggestions
imply the cost of doing so is neglible relative to the return.

> If you have a cheap source of electricity, cheaper than the market,
> sell it and get rich. No need for a bit coins detour.

It's a matter of the relative level of rich.  Think of maize.

If the farmer can grow maize cheaper than competitors, he could
sell it for slightly more of a profit, but will he become rich?
No.  He'll make a slightly larger, but otherwise neglible profit.
Now, if the farmer can convert the grain to a liquor and sell it,
he'll earn 65 times as much per bushel.  The liquor is a far more
valuable product.  A Bitcoin in the future could be the more
valuable product.  A Bitcoin in the future could be worth more
than the electricity cost in the present.  Given that expectation,
it even makes sense to mine Bitcoin when the price of electricity
for mining a coin exceeds the coin's current value...  Of course,
there is no guarantee that Bitcoin won't deflate or stagnate.  It
depends on demand.  The eventual total supply of Bitcoins is fixed
and therefore so are fractional coins.

> <SNIP>
>> P.S.  Yes, it's true that simple usage of Bitcoin constitutes money
>> laundering under U.S. Federal laws.  It's a non-legal tender transaction
>> with indeterminable source and destination that didn't occur within
>> the financial system.  The U.S. has two definitions of money laundering.
>> That's the second one.  The first is that money comes from an unlawful
>> activity.  The second one needs *NO* illegal activity other than use.
>> That's why you can be charged with money laundering from using poker
>> chips, Canadian dollars used in the US, (etc.) to "transfer" money...
>
> Interesting.

I thought so.

> The rest of the world is going to use bitcoins

Unlikely.

I see Bitcoins as just the first of many, many solutions.  In time,
only two or so are likely to be used, and neither will likely be
Bitcoin.  It's very likely alternate solutions will fix technical
implementation issues, fit user demands better such as providing
reversible transactions, and work with governments and banking systems.
IIRC, one U.S. bank has already filed patents on technology very
similar to Bitcoin.

It's very likely in my opinion that governments and banks will use
their full authority to control any useful virtual currencies and/or
the development of them.  They're not going to relinquish monetary
policy to ordinary people of the world any time soon even if the
technology allows for it.  They're not going to forfit their ability
to control crime by preventing money laundering any time soon either.
If a government can't control crime, of what use is it?

> and the dollar has no use but toilet paper.

Does the euro fair any better in your dystopian world?


Rod Pemberton

Back to comp.lang.forth | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 15:18 +0000
  Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-12 17:02 +0000
    Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 17:27 +0000
      Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. Tristan Plumb <firth@trstn.net> - 2014-01-12 22:40 +0000
        Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-12 23:03 +0000
          Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2014-01-12 16:54 -0800
  Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:45 -0500
    Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:54 -0500
      Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 02:57 -0500
    Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-13 12:32 +0000
      Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-13 09:52 -0500
        Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. mszepien@gmail.com - 2014-01-19 11:01 -0800
          Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-19 19:38 +0000
            Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. mszepien@gmail.com - 2014-01-19 13:40 -0800
              Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-19 17:50 -0500
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. mszepien@gmail.com - 2014-01-20 12:55 -0800
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-20 16:34 -0500
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. mszepien@gmail.com - 2014-01-21 04:49 -0800
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-21 10:48 -0500
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. mszepien@gmail.com - 2014-01-21 14:37 -0800
                Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. albert@spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2014-01-22 19:30 +0000
    Re: Green Array energy consumption: a reality check. "Rod Pemberton" <dont_use_email@xnohavenotit.cnm> - 2014-01-27 16:26 -0500

csiph-web