Crypto Miners buying up entire power plants

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, LAwLz said:

The GPU market is limited. Sooner or later everyone who wants to buy a graphics card will have one.

Also relevant to particular counter arguments is that even if a miner wanted to purchase and run an infinite amount of GPUs they cannot. They cannot because building space is not unlimited, grid power is not unlimited and maintenance time is finite. When you have enough of a product operating the typical failure rate starts to matter a lot to that person as they will actually have to detect that something has failed and do something, you can only manage as much as you have human resources to manage it.

[Bombastinator]

For caught smugglers there were those video cards being smuggled into China. 
 

and for Nvidia behavior the probably somewhat ridiculous attempts at preventing mining on the cards.

 

Neither are definitive and both could be other things. Implication rather than direct.  The problem is there are multiple effects all pointing in the same direction.  It’s definitely not the ONLY reason.  How much of the situation is attributable to mining is difficult to determine.  There does seem to be at least some though.  It’s likely not the lions share. But zero also strikes me as unlikely.  
 

The whole car thing has weirdnesses to it.  I went shopping for cars recently.   All companies seem affected but some much more than others.  Ford is having big problems.  The dealers there had nearly empty lots.  Few cars to sell.  but there were plenty of cars at the Nissan dealerships.  It wasn’t even.  That one seems to be at least partially self inflicted by executive action and how far away from Asia cars are being built.  I had to buy a leaf for the same price I was expecting to buy a Tesla for.

[dragonfly43]

Here are some ideas to save the planet (I am retired, so some are easier for me than you young guys).
1- Buy less clothes, my old jeans are OK
2- No more new computers, tablets, phones ... Linux is fine with very old CPUs
3- Boycott crypto currencies, Games ... (don't even invest in these)
4- Reduce food waste, order/cook only what I can eat. Eat less meat.
5- Use my feet/public transpo for banking, groceries ... cut down on gas and solve obesity problem at the same time
6- Reduce plastic use 
7- Reduce paper use (use a bidet, in case you don't have one, the Koreans/Japanese make toilet seats with one included)
8- Keep the thermostat at 20C in winter

 

[Mark Kaine]

This forum: "crypto isnt profitable anymore, china is selling all their gpus under msrp!!!"

 

crypto miners: *buying entire powerplants* 

 

 

5 hours ago, dragonfly43 said:

Here are some ideas to save the planet (I am retired, so some are easier for me than you young guys).
1- Buy less clothes, my old jeans are OK
2- No more new computers, tablets, phones ... Linux is fine with very old CPUs
3- Boycott crypto currencies, Games ... (don't even invest in these)
4- Reduce food waste, order/cook only what I can eat. Eat less meat.
5- Use my feet/public transpo for banking, groceries ... cut down on gas and solve obesity problem at the same time
6- Reduce plastic use 
7- Reduce paper use (use a bidet, in case you don't have one, the Koreans/Japanese make toilet seats with one included)
8- Keep the thermostat at 20C in winter

 

good list, i do more than half of that already, plus more, i dont watch tv for example… im a bit baffled at no mention of ACs which are huge environmental offenders, and kinda serve no purpose (sorry no, they dont, other than make people sick and gunk up electronics maybe)

 

But no games? well then i dont need a computer… i admit its not great for the environment, but is easily offset by me not watching tv, netflix , or go to movies, or watch a gazillion of yt videos every day…

 

still i entirely agree, cutting down on unnecessary energy consumption is the way to go obviously, im just concerned about the people who do almost nothing on that list - which is the majority, if they can afford it, reckless energy consumption is a status symbol after all, just like buying a new phone every 1-2 years (i dont do that either)

 

 

 

 

 

[Bombastinator]

1 minute ago, Mark Kaine said:

This forum: "crypto isnt profitable anymore, china is selling all their gpus under msrp!!!"

 

crypto miners: *buying entire powerplants* 

 

 

good list, i do more than half of that already, plus more, i dont watch tv for example… im a bit baffled at no mention of ACs which are huge environmental offenders, and kinda serve no purpose (sorry no, they dont, other than make people sick and gunk up electronics maybe)

 

But no games? well then i dont need a computer… i admit its not great for the environment, but is easily offset by me not watching tv, netflix , or go to movies, or watch a gazillion of yt videos every day…

 

still i entirely agree, cutting down on unnecessary energy consumption is the way to go obviously, im just concerned about the people who do almost nothing on that list - which is the majority, if they can afford it, reckless energy consumption is a status symbol after all, just like buying a new phone every 1-2 years (i dont do that either)

 

 

 

 

 

This make people sick thing, is that having an AC or not having an AC?  Old people can die in heat waves.  A fan does use less power though and if the area you live in has low enough humidity (a hard requirement for this) a swamp cooler like those portable “air conditioners” actually can work. Of course draping a wet towel in front of a fan does too which is basically all they are.

[WkdPaul]

6 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

*snip*

I agree that AC has it's place, not every places need one but some area do need it.

 

But it's true that there are places that overuse AC (like in HK specifically, where they use AC all year long even when it's not needed ; https://www.businessinsider.com/why-hong-kong-malls-are-freezing-cold-2015-3)

[dragonfly43]

Quote

im a bit baffled at no mention of ACs which are huge environmental offenders,

Sorry I forgot about that.

I live in Quebec, not a huge consumer of AC by the way, and use fans whenever I can because I hate closed windows.

[tikker]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

This make people sick thing, is that having an AC or not having an AC?

Having an AC. The idea is that it stirs up allergens and what not in the room and potentially harbours all sorts of human-unfriendly stuff if not cleaned/maintained well. I'd wager the temperature shocks also don't help. That's the thing I dislike the most about AC (even though it's not really a property of them).  It's nice and comfortable inside and then BAM you get hit in the face with the heat once you step out.

 

We don't really have AC here. In shops and offices they're common, but otherwise it's called a window.

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, tikker said:

Having an AC. The idea is that it stirs up allergens and what not in the room and potentially harbours all sorts of human-unfriendly stuff if not cleaned/maintained well. I'd wager the temperature shocks also don't help. That's the thing I dislike the most about AC (even though it's not really a property of them).  It's nice and comfortable inside and then BAM you get hit in the face with the heat once you step out.

 

We don't really have AC here. In shops and offices they're common, but otherwise it's called a window.

It may be appropriate or not appropriate for specific allergens. A hay fever sufferer would want windows closed and air con on to keep pollen from getting into the house.  It’s pretty extreme.  Open a window, start sneezing.  I understand that’s to some dergree an American thing because people earlier in the last century when commercial level tree cloning was the new hotness thought they should plant male trees instead of female ones because they drop less litter, not thinking about the pollen issue.

[Vishera]

On 7/20/2021 at 3:07 PM, TGG23 said:

"As the energy demands of cryptocurrency mining garner increased scrutiny, some mining operations are cutting out the middleman and setting up shop inside existing power plants."

Let the explosions begin,

Imagine miners with no electrical knowledge trying to maintain and run a power plant...

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Let the explosions begin,

Imagine miners with no electrical knowledge trying to maintain and run a power plant...

I understand working power plants will occasionally run crypto during low power periods where they can’t sell their power for a profit and can’t shutdown easily.  The ones that scare me are crypto companies opening up power plants that have been shut down for efficiency or environmental reasons.  There was a story about a power plant that lined its inner walls with ASIC miners and run then late at night when power prices are low and they can’t sell their power for a profit.

Edited July 23, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Vishera]

2 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I understand working power plants will occasionally run crypto during low power periods where they can’t sell their power for a profit.  The ones that scare me are crypto companies opening up power plants that have been shut down for efficiency or environmental reasons.  

Especially plants that are functional but in bad condition/hazardous for workers or environment.

Also even plants that are in good condition can be screwed up,especially natural gas ones,what will they do if the gas leaks? - They are not trained for it or anything like it...

And i don't think that they have the gear to deal with stuff like this.

[Bombastinator]

9 minutes ago, Vishera said:

Especially plants that are functional but in bad condition/hazardous for workers or environment.

Also even plants that are in good condition can be screwed up,especially natural gas ones,what will they do if the gas leaks? - They are not trained for it or anything like it...

And i don't think that they have the gear to deal with stuff like this.

It’s going to be nation specific.  Might be hard to do in the US because of the way the power system works in a lot of places but if the company could take a power plant OFF the grid it might be able to sidestep regulation designed to prevent catastrophe or such.  Every power plant in the world that has been sold recently probably needs to be looked at. I could see a mining company setting up IN a power plant to do effectively what a power plant sometimes does for itself but under contract.  That seems like less cost and less danger. 

[Vishera]

13 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I could see a mining company setting up IN a power plant to do effectively what a power plant sometimes does for itself but under contract.  That seems like less cost and less danger. 

That sounds good,but i have a feeling that some companies won't do that.

 

[Bombastinator]

14 minutes ago, Vishera said:

That sounds good,but i have a feeling that some companies won't do that.

 

Me too.  Hence the check everything.

[Jtalk4456]

On 7/21/2021 at 1:55 PM, Bombastinator said:

AFAiK those are the two main purposes cryptocoin has over traditional currencies. 

You're joking, right?
Dear lord I hope you're joking, cuz criminal activity is not a main purpose. The purpose of crypto is to replace traditional bank transactions with a network made of user verified, user secured transactions not dependent on some centralized bank that might not have our best interest higher on the priority list than making money. It is a currency, and ANY currency can be used for criminal activity, but that does not make criminal activity the purpose of crypto any more than it does the USD. You could also say that VPN's are particularly useful for criminal activities, but you'd be on a sinking ship trying to argue the purpose of VPN's is committing crime. ANY technology or service providing greater privacy for a consumer is better suited for crime because crime likes privacy. but Privacy is not just for crime, it's for everyone, for all reasons.

On 7/21/2021 at 1:41 PM, overthe6r said:

Where does crypto money comes from? And for what are they using mining pcs

I think you're needing a simpler explanation than what some are telling. 
So on a very basic level, the idea of crypto is a crowdfunded effort to replace traditional banks and the need for government currency. So what crypto does is create a block of code. This "blockchain" is a record of transactions basically. the record is public and verified constantly, which makes the system harder to commit fraud with than traditional method. Then users will "Mine" the block, where they solve complex puzzles to verify transactions and record the transactions in the larger code. The difficulty of solving these puzzles can change based on how many people are participating. When you "mine", you get rewarded with some "coin" That coin is assigned value by the market, same as anything else. If people are joining in and participating, the value goes up. People lose interest, the value goes down. Despite what some people may tell you, this is no different than the government currency. 1 USD is just a piece of printed paper. Take the same piece of paper and print a slightly different pattern and it's suddenly worth $10 or $100. We have created a currency and assigned value to it to basically standardize the economy. If I'm trading chickens and there's a meat shortage, my chicken just became more valuable, but if I have $100 bill, it's worth $100, period. But that value is assigned just like anything else. Inflation affects that value, shortages in the market affect that value, global affairs affect that value. But the effect on a government backed currency is lessened due to the scale and the maturity of the currency. With enough time and participation, crypto can be just as stable. Right now it's relatively new for a currency and is very volatile as an investment. That makes it a high risk with a potentially high gain or loss. I personally believe that the removal of paper and coin currencies is an inevitable future. We already do online transactions all the time, and with more time, I believe that crypto will become more appealing than working with Visa or Mastercard, etc. Long term I trust it will skyrocket in value and eventually all but replace traditional money. The question is how long that will take and how can we make it more environmentally friendly.

 

[Jtalk4456]

OK I've got a weird question here. So ignoring if crypto is good or bad, ignoring everything including energy source, just focusing on raw usage. It's been said many times that crypto transactions take far more energy to process the same transaction vs a traditional bank, and that makes sense. But lets imagine crypto ENTIRELY replaced someone like Visa or Mastercard. If we count in all the energy costs of the rest of the business like all the phones and computers for legal department, customer service department, all the other things that make a full business work, including building with lights and elevators and tvs in the breakroom, etc., does the decentralized nature of crypto mean that the energy cost difference could be balanced out by NOT having a bitcoin customer service line, by NOT having the legal team or NOT having the security guy playing solitaire on his computer by the entrance? Furthermore could the lack of a physical business not taking up vast amounts of land and building materials further make crypto a more environmentally friendly option in comparison?

[Bombastinator]

17 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

You're joking, right?
Dear lord I hope you're joking, cuz criminal activity is not a main purpose. The purpose of crypto is to replace traditional bank transactions with a network made of user verified, user secured transactions not dependent on some centralized bank that might not have our best interest higher on the priority list than making money. It is a currency, and ANY currency can be used for criminal activity, but that does not make criminal activity the purpose of crypto any more than it does the USD. You could also say that VPN's are particularly useful for criminal activities, but you'd be on a sinking ship trying to argue the purpose of VPN's is committing crime. ANY technology or service providing greater privacy for a consumer is better suited for crime because crime likes privacy. but Privacy is not just for crime, it's for everyone, for all reasons.

I think you're needing a simpler explanation than what some are telling. 
So on a very basic level, the idea of crypto is a crowdfunded effort to replace traditional banks and the need for government currency. So what crypto does is create a block of code. This "blockchain" is a record of transactions basically. the record is public and verified constantly, which makes the system harder to commit fraud with than traditional method. Then users will "Mine" the block, where they solve complex puzzles to verify transactions and record the transactions in the larger code. The difficulty of solving these puzzles can change based on how many people are participating. When you "mine", you get rewarded with some "coin" That coin is assigned value by the market, same as anything else. If people are joining in and participating, the value goes up. People lose interest, the value goes down. Despite what some people may tell you, this is no different than the government currency. 1 USD is just a piece of printed paper. Take the same piece of paper and print a slightly different pattern and it's suddenly worth $10 or $100. We have created a currency and assigned value to it to basically standardize the economy. If I'm trading chickens and there's a meat shortage, my chicken just became more valuable, but if I have $100 bill, it's worth $100, period. But that value is assigned just like anything else. Inflation affects that value, shortages in the market affect that value, global affairs affect that value. But the effect on a government backed currency is lessened due to the scale and the maturity of the currency. With enough time and participation, crypto can be just as stable. Right now it's relatively new for a currency and is very volatile as an investment. That makes it a high risk with a potentially high gain or loss. I personally believe that the removal of paper and coin currencies is an inevitable future. We already do online transactions all the time, and with more time, I believe that crypto will become more appealing than working with Visa or Mastercard, etc. Long term I trust it will skyrocket in value and eventually all but replace traditional money. The question is how long that will take and how can we make it more environmentally friendly.

 

You’re talking about stated intentions.  I’m talking about what is actually happening.  Etherium was also intended to empower casual gaming miners who would mine with spare usage when not gaming.  It’s not that that didn’t happen.  It’s just that it was totally overwhelmed and is only a few percent of etherium mining to the point that it ca become a bit questionable as to whether it’s even worth it for casual miners to even bother. It 

Edited July 24, 2021 by Bombastinator

[Jtalk4456]

3 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

You’re talking about stated intentions.  I’m talking about what is actually happening.  Etherium was also intended to empower casual gaming miners who would mine with spare usage when not gaming.  It’s not that that didn’t happen.  It’s just that it was totally overwhelmed and is only a few percent of etherium mining to the point that it ca become a bit questionable as to whether it’s even worth it for casual miners to even bother. It 

intention of use is purpose. and the idea that crypto is overwhelmingly used for crime just hasn't held up to any facts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=24a6df813432

Also just because etherium got popular with more people in no way makes etherium questionable for casual miners. It met and exceeded it's purpose. but the purpose still was the purpose, the same way some hammers have been used for murders, but murder doesn't suddenly become the purpose of a hammer

[Bombastinator]

2 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

intention of use is purpose. and the idea that crypto is overwhelmingly used for crime just hasn't held up to any facts
https://www.forbes.com/sites/haileylennon/2021/01/19/the-false-narrative-of-bitcoins-role-in-illicit-activity/?sh=24a6df813432

Also just because etherium got popular with more people in no way makes etherium questionable for casual miners. It met and exceeded it's purpose. but the purpose still was the purpose, the same way some hammers have been used for murders, but murder doesn't suddenly become the purpose of a hammer

Murder becomes the purpose of a hammer when someone comes at you with murderous intent. You’re running with the “don’t hate the player hate the game” argument. Which has a long history. Intent is not relevant once something is put into action.  It can mitigate in some cases but it doesn’t change the overall thing that happened. manslaughter is still a kind of murder.

[tikker]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

You’re talking about stated intentions.  I’m talking about what is actually happening.  Etherium was also intended to empower casual gaming miners who would mine with spare usage when not gaming.  It’s not that that didn’t happen.  It’s just that it was totally overwhelmed and is only a few percent of etherium mining to the point that it ca become a bit questionable as to whether it’s even worth it for casual miners to even bother. It 

It's not at all overwhelmed. Estimates from e.g. Chainalysis conclude that iIllicit activity in crypto is less than 1% (apart from 2019 where it was 2.1%). Home mining is also still completely profitable for Ethereum and the fact that the majority of hashrate is concentrated in big farms does not immediately imply that that is all illegal activity. Ethereum is quite popular actually and one of the reasons it wants to move to proof of stake is because mining simply can't scale well enough. The reason it was (and still is to be honest) so expensive to do anything on the network is because it's so congested.

8 hours ago, Jtalk4456 said:

OK I've got a weird question here. So ignoring if crypto is good or bad, ignoring everything including energy source, just focusing on raw usage. It's been said many times that crypto transactions take far more energy to process the same transaction vs a traditional bank, and that makes sense. But lets imagine crypto ENTIRELY replaced someone like Visa or Mastercard. If we count in all the energy costs of the rest of the business like all the phones and computers for legal department, customer service department, all the other things that make a full business work, including building with lights and elevators and tvs in the breakroom, etc., does the decentralized nature of crypto mean that the energy cost difference could be balanced out by NOT having a bitcoin customer service line, by NOT having the legal team or NOT having the security guy playing solitaire on his computer by the entrance? Furthermore could the lack of a physical business not taking up vast amounts of land and building materials further make crypto a more environmentally friendly option in comparison?

These are some interesting points. Honestly the parts about not having a legal department or customer service is the biggest point why I don't see it going mainstream anytime soon. You can't block your "account" if you are compromised and transactions can't be reversed, so if you get scammed or something it's just gone. Not that banks in this day and age are willing to do much in that regard, especially if you transfer it yourself, but I think in the end it's too much responsibility for the average user. I could see it appear in the back end in some shape or form. The point about not needing phyiscal businesses and such is also interesting.

[Jtalk4456]

8 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Murder becomes the purpose of a hammer when someone comes at you with murderous intent. You’re running with the “don’t hate the player hate the game” argument. Which has a long history. Intent is not relevant once something is put into action.  It can mitigate in some cases but it doesn’t change the overall thing that happened. manslaughter is still a kind of murder.

no murder does not become the purpose of the hammer, murder is what that person is using the tool for, but the purpose is not based on the outlier of someone using it completely outside of its intended design. Intent is always relevant. Lets continue the murder analogy. If I run up to someone and randomly kill them with a hammer, sure that's murder. But lets say they broke into my home and threatened my family, so I grabbed the closest thing I had and used it to defend my family. That's suddenly not murder, but self defense. Intent is everything, especially when getting into semantics like this. The purpose of an object is what it was designed/made/intended to be used for. That does not change when someone uses it outside those parameters.You can USE a hammer to murder, but a hammer is not INTENDED to be used to murder, it's purpose has been and will always be hammering and prying up nails.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

no murder does not become the purpose of the hammer, murder is what that person is using the tool for, but the purpose is not based on the outlier of someone using it completely outside of its intended design. Intent is always relevant. Lets continue the murder analogy. If I run up to someone and randomly kill them with a hammer, sure that's murder. But lets say they broke into my home and threatened my family, so I grabbed the closest thing I had and used it to defend my family. That's suddenly not murder, but self defense. Intent is everything, especially when getting into semantics like this. The purpose of an object is what it was designed/made/intended to be used for. That does not change when someone uses it outside those parameters.You can USE a hammer to murder, but a hammer is not INTENDED to be used to murder, it's purpose has been and will always be hammering and prying up nails.

Things get used outside of their intended design all the time though.  As to the murder analogy, no. It’s still murder in that someone is still dead.  There will still be a police enquirey.  It’s whether or not it’s defensible or reasonable murder. “Murder” is a specific legal term though which might be termed “unjustifiable homicide”. The whole home defense thing might be “justifiable homicide” but it’s still homicide. The nature of the argument has not changed.

[tikker]

53 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Things get used outside of their intended design all the time though.  As to the murder analogy, no. It’s still murder in that someone is still dead.  There will still be a police enquirey.  It’s whether or not it’s defensible or reasonable murder. “Murder” is a specific legal term though which might be termed “unjustifiable homicide”. The whole home defense thing might be “justifiable homicide” but it’s still homicide. The nature of the argument has not changed.

Legal nitpicking ensues (from a Dutch law perspective, so it might be a bit different for you)

Spoiler

Murder comes with the connotation of being premeditated and without justifiable cause. So that would be if you've been thinking about killing that noisy neigbour for a while and end him during dinner, or if you grab a hammer, walk out on the street and kill someone. Then we have manslaughter. Premeditated manslaughter ("doodslag met voorbedachte rade") is another term for murder; voluntary manslaughter would be if you are having an argument and in the heat of the moment grab a hammer and bash in the other persons skull. You didn't plan on killing them before you got in the argument, but you did intentionally kill them. Finally we have "dood door schuld" (something like "death by fault" literally) which I think is involuntary manslaughter in English terms. That is when, for example, you are having an argument, you kick scaffolding in frustration and a hammer falls down obliterating the other person's skull. There was never any intent of killing the other person, but you are to blame.

in this analogy, someone breaking into your house and you hitting them dead with a hammer would be voluntary manslaughter, but you can call upon self defense to get charges dismissed. Self defense has to be proportional here though. If someone harasses you and subsequently you vapourise them with a grenade launcher that would not be proportionally justifiable self defense.

Things being used outside their intention does not change the intention. You are guilty of murder if you murder someone with a hammer, just like if you are laundering money with crypto you are guitly of money laundering. That does not mean the intention of crypto was crime (which the numbers also back up) much like the intention of the hammer was never as an instrument of death.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

Things get used outside of their intended design all the time though.

Such is why you are having to say "outside of intended design". You have to say those very words should be a really big clue as to why usage doesn't change intent, otherwise all shoes were intended to be used as hammers because I once used my shoe to hammer a nail in. Do you or I get to return a shoe for a refund because it's poor at hammering in nails?

 

4 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

As to the murder analogy, no. It’s still murder in that someone is still dead.  There will still be a police enquirey.  It’s whether or not it’s defensible or reasonable murder. “Murder” is a specific legal term though which might be termed “unjustifiable homicide”. The whole home defense thing might be “justifiable homicide” but it’s still homicide. The nature of the argument has not changed

If you want to get in to specifics like this then it's not "murder". Police will start a homicide enquiry however an equerry does not mean such a crime as actually been committed. All they are doing is undertaking an act to ascertain what they believe happened, which may result in charges being laid against a suspect which must be proven in court. Until a court trial has been concluded no murder nor manslaughter has been committed.

 

The typical legal term for what is being talked about is involuntary manslaughter, however when talking about self defense under law where it exists and that is the defense you are going for you will be found not guilty of involuntary manslaughter meaning legally you did not commit any form of manslaughter. Somebody may have died but neither murder nor manslaughter were committed.

 

Do a criminal history check of any person that has successfully used self defense in a court trial and you shall find no mention of murder or manslaughter on their criminal record.