ASX scraps seven years, 250M$ blockchain project meant to replace its legacy system

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

Summary

ASX Limited is an Australian company that deliver securities and derivatives exchange services.

The company uses its CHESS system (Clearing House Electronic Subregister System) to list and transfer ownership of ASX shares.

Seven years ago ASX started developing a private blockchain project to replace it's aeging CHESS system.

 

Seven years, and 250M$ later, ASX scrapped the project after a damning third party Accenture report, that the blockchain project was only 63% complete and had trouble with throughput.

ASX will begin again searching for non-blockchain alternatives for its CHESS system.

 

Quotes

Quote

 ASX said it had conducted its own internal assessment of the CHESS replacement project, which you may recall commenced way back in 2015.

An independent review was also conducted by Accenture.

Accenture was brought in to review the project in early August this year, when the ASX reported yet another delay with its blockchain-based system upgrade plans.

At the time, the company reported the new system, being developed by application provider Digital Asset, wouldn’t be up and running until 2024.

Now it appears the hyped ledger technology may be off the cards entirely.

 

My thoughts

Public blockchains have severe throughput and ledger size issues with common validation mechanisms often having perverse structural incentives that will inevitably transfer an increasing number of tokens from small holders to large holders.
Making a blockchain private, means having only a small number of trusted parties running the blockchain. While private blockchains defeat the original purpuse of a blockchain (to remove centralized control), that allows to improve the performance and efficiency, still not at the level where it can compete with an efficient database like SQL or an efficient secure messaging system like SWIFT.

 

Fourteen years after the birth of Bitcoin, there are still no real world applications where the blockchain technology is the right tool for the job. Blockchain technology, as it currently stand, is just a slower, less efficient way to what we can already do. There is a steep penalty in maintaining a system under the assumption that every user of the system might be working to undermine the system itself.

 

Even with 250 million dollars and seven years of development, a company like ASX was unable to make a blockchain competitive with its aeging non-blockchain counterpart.

 

I'm pretty confident that if there is a niche where blockchain technology is useful, it's not going to be in the financial system, where trust, speed, and the ability to reverse transactions are fundamental.

 

Sources

https://www.fool.com.au/2022/11/17/asx-share-price-slides-amid-250-million-chess-replacement-bombshell/

https://www2.asx.com.au/

 

[Fasterthannothing]

RIP cryptocurrency 2022 I'm pretty convinced this past month is basically the nail in the coffin for mainstream cryptocurrency 

[Holmes108]

Very well put, OP.

[Heliian]

5 hours ago, Fasterthannothing said:

RIP cryptocurrency 2022 I'm pretty convinced this past month is basically the nail in the coffin for mainstream cryptocurrency 

Dust in the wind. 

 

Great time to buy a GPU though! 

[williamcll]

On 11/18/2022 at 1:57 AM, Fasterthannothing said:

RIP cryptocurrency 2022 I'm pretty convinced this past month is basically the nail in the coffin for mainstream cryptocurrency 

Not quite yet, gonna have to get Binance to blow first.

[Arika]

i could have told them this many years ago with an extremely simply flowchart:

 

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

4 hours ago, Arika S said:

i could have told them this many years ago with an extremely simply flowchart:

 

I do wonder why ASX kept trying for so long... Maybe ASX really was closer than most to a useable blockchain?

 

Companies used to give up transitioning to blockchain very quickly, it doen't take long to see it's not fit for the job. I think it's used in the financial sector because buzzwords do bring in real investment.

[ewitte]

On 11/17/2022 at 11:57 AM, Fasterthannothing said:

RIP cryptocurrency 2022 I'm pretty convinced this past month is basically the nail in the coffin for mainstream cryptocurrency 

It has been reported dead 100 times yet like clockwork it has followed a 4 year up/down cycle coming back with stronger than before.  The top 1-5% at least.  Smaller projects fail all the time.

[ravenshrike]

On 11/17/2022 at 11:40 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

no real world applications where the blockchain technology is the right tool for the job.

FedEx says hello.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

1 hour ago, ravenshrike said:

FedEx says hello.

Where is Fedex using blockchain?

[LAwLz]

In before people who has an irrational hatred for blockchains because they hate cryptocurrencies find this thread and start talking about how cryptocurrencies are bad (even though this doesn't have anything to do with cryptocurrencies) and how it is the reason why GPUs are so expensive (ignoring all the other reasons why GPU prices are high).

 

Oh wait, I was too late. It has already happened.

 

 

22 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Where is Fedex using blockchain?

Fedex has launched a pilot project where they are testing using a blockchain to track shipments. I don't think it's widely deployed but they are investigating it.

UPS is also investigating using it for tracking packets, but I am not sure if they have actually implemented it in any way yet, unlike Fedex.

 

They are both members in the Blockchain in Transport Alliance. I don't know much about that alliance, but it seems like their goal is to implement a distributed system where all parts of the supply chain can track and verify where the packet is, so that it becomes easier to verify if a packet was lost and if so, where and by whom.

Right now it's kind of the wild west from what I understand, and if a package is being handed over multiple times everyone can just end up pointing fingers at each other and going "no, I didn't lose the package, they did!" with very little way for anyone to verify it.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

In before people who has an irrational hatred for blockchains because they hate cryptocurrencies find this thread and start talking about how cryptocurrencies are bad (even though this doesn't have anything to do with cryptocurrencies) and how it is the reason why GPUs are so expensive (ignoring all the other reasons why GPU prices are high).

We had a long discussion in the past in this thread about this.

 

I don't like to say "I was right" but the situation calls for it. I was right. I laid out my arguments and my predictions. My model has proven predictive. Price of ETH goes down, GPU prices goes down. ETH PoW dies, GPU prices go down to reasonable levels.

Time has proven the causality link between crypto miners willing to pay 3000$ for GPUs in pallets and GPUs costing 3000$, beyond any shadow of a doubt:

• Ethereum price fell, GPU prices fell.
• Ethereum PoW mining died. As soon as it died, GPU prices took a plunge.
• The 4000 series has launched, it hast been weeks, and they are available. Like it was before the scourge of crypto mining. The 3000 series was unavailable for two years.

There was a pandemic, supply chain disruption, and crypto miners were still the first factor in GPU scarcity worldwide. Impressive, really.

 

I even nailed my prediction about energy reduction. I had predicted between 0.1% and 1% had ethereum PoW disappeared.

 

NOW, ETH price is finally uncorrelated with GPU prices.

 

Because GPUs can no longer mine ETH.

 

Good riddance.

 

My rational hatred of blockchain will slowly subside, because ETH has spared the 4000 series of the horrible fate of crypto mining. Maybe with the 5000 series Jensen will realize only Crypto miners were willing to pay 3000$ for GPUs in pallets, and he'll be forced to sell GPUs at a reasonable price. 1200$ for a 4080 is not still a reasonable price. Better than 3000$ because of Ethereum PoW mining, but far from healed, the market is.

 

5 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Fedex has launched a pilot project where they are testing using a blockchain to track shipments. I don't think it's widely deployed but they are investigating it.

Yup, a project that started in 2018, and I predict will end like ALL other attempts to use blockchain technology instead of a proper database. With the project quietly scrapped. Let's see how this prediction will hold the test of time, shall we? Feel free to link me back to this post if Fedex switches their worldwide tracking system to blockchain. I will genuinely admit I was wrong, but I doubt it. Blockchain is just that bad at what is supposed to do.

[LAwLz]

36 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I don't like to say "I was right" but the situation calls for it. I was right. I laid out my arguments and my predictions. My model has proven predictive. Price of ETH goes down, GPU prices goes down. ETH PoW dies, GPU prices go down to reasonable levels.

lol no you weren't.

 

Global emissions were not reduced by 0.1 to 1% (which by the way was a very wide span). Electricity consumption != global emissions.

It was 0.2% of electricity emissions that were estimated to have been reduced, but electricity generation is an estimated ~25% of all emissions. So the reduction was 0.2% out of 25%. In other words, emissions dropped by 0,05%. You were off by up to 1900%.

 

The drop in GPU prices does not follow the drop in Ethereum prices at all. Both went down at the same time, but by massively varying degrees. Hell, at several points in your own chart after January 2022 we can see that the price of Ethereum goes up and the price on GPUs keep falling. The data doesn't track at all. That is not what correlation looks like. But even if it did (which it doesn't), correlation does not mean causation.

Also, are you seriously saying that GPU prices are now at resonable levels? Come on...

 

 

 

58 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

• Ethereum PoW mining died. As soon as it died, GPU prices took a plunge.

Is that what you are trying to show with that graph where GPU prices fell from 170% over MSRP to 114% over MSRP?

Because that happened between January and may in 2022. The change to PoS happened in september, long after prices had dropped.

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

• The 4000 series has launched, it hast been weeks, and they are available. Like it was before the scourge of crypto mining. The 3000 series was unavailable for two years.

And you think this is because of mining, not because we are heading into a recession, shipping costs are way down, shipping issues are mostly solved, the pandemic is in general over, and people are no longer given thousands of dollars in stimulus checks?

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

There was a pandemic, supply chain disruption, and crypto miners were still the first factor in GPU scarcity worldwide. Impressive, really.

In your head maybe...

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I even nailed my prediction about energy reduction. I had predicted between 0.1% and 1% had ethereum PoW disappeared.

No you didn't. You were 1900% off, and that was after I had said 0.125%. I was far closer than you were, but we both dramatically overestimated it if the 0.2% electricity number is correct.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

lol no you weren't.

No offense, but reading this I imagined a funny scene with you going out in the rain without umbrella and getting wet. Everyone around you is donning umbrellas and not getting wet, with you thinking:

"Why are people hating on rain? It's not like the rain causes you to become wet if you don't use an umbrella. Just because people are getting wet during rain without umbrellas protecting them, it doesn't mean getting wet is causal to being under the rain without umbrella. There are other more important factors at play."

[LAwLz]

39 minutes ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

No offense, but reading this I imagined a funny scene with you going out in the rain without umbrella and getting wet. Everyone around you is donning umbrellas and not getting wet, with you thinking:

"Why are people hating on rain? It's not like the rain causes you to become wet if you don't use an umbrella. Just because people are getting wet during rain without umbrellas protecting them, it doesn't mean getting wet is causal to being under the rain without umbrella. There are other more important factors at play."

Again, you were off by 1900% and yet you say you got it right.

You only see what you want to see. Same with the correlation. You pay a lot of attention to the times it kind of lines up, but ignores all the times it doesn't line up. You come up with excuses for why it doesn't matter all the times where there is no correlation, and as soon as there is some kind of correlation it's evidence.

 

But please remember that correlation does not imply causation. It is one of the fundamental blocks of science and logic in general. Correlation is not evidence of causation. It is easy to think it is, but it isn't. If you don't understand this then I don't think it is worth continuing the conversation. Especially not when you conveniently ignores all the other factors that may play a role in GPU prices.

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Again, you were off by 1900% and yet you say you got it right.

You only see what you want to see. Same with the correlation. You pay a lot of attention to the times it kind of lines up, but ignores all the times it doesn't line up. You come up with excuses for why it doesn't matter all the times where there is no correlation, and as soon as there is some kind of correlation it's evidence.

 

But please remember that correlation does not imply causation. It is one of the fundamental blocks of science and logic in general. Correlation is not evidence of causation. It is easy to think it is, but it isn't. If you don't understand this then I don't think it is worth continuing the conversation. Especially not when you conveniently ignores all the other factors that may play a role in GPU prices.

I'm not in a number crunching mood right now, and you'll dismiss my numbers anyway attributing the results to sheer unfathomable coincidences, because I can't really be certain rain is causal to getting wet under the rain.

 

We laid out our arguments.

 

You should be happy because my "irrational" hatred of blockchain technology is coming to an end:

• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, Ethereum has switched to PoS, and GPUs are now available!
• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, ASX has poured money into a failed technology, and the technology ASX has poured money into failed to bear fruit.
• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, millions of people lost their savings because of Blockchain, and Blockchain as a whole is experiencing a "winter".

Will Fedex technology bear fruit? If it won't, I'm sure it'll be just another unfathomable coincidence, nobody can really be sure Blockchain technology was the cause of Fedex failure. If it will, I'm sure it'll be the proof Blockchain technology was the future all along and all the savings, fuel and GPUs burnt along the way (without causing shortages at all) were worth it.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, Ethereum has switched to PoS, and GPUs are now available!

That did not happen at the same time. GPU availability was "fixed" (if we assume that it is fixed) long before Ethereum switched to PoS.

According to your own graph, GPU prices were more or less fixed in May and the big drop started in January, with prices dropping almost 10-20% per month. The switch to PoS happened 4 months after we had almost reached MSRP already.

 

You can't look at two events happening 4 to 8 months apart and then go "these are totally related!".

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, ASX has poured money into a failed technology, and the technology ASX has poured money into failed to bear fruit.

Now you are making a strawman argument... I haven't made any comment about ASX in this thread or the other thread.

The ASX story has absolutely nothing to do with your old posts because in that thread we were talking about GPUs and cryptocurrencies, not whether or not blockchains are useful for things other than cryptocurrencies.

 

 

I feel like I am talking to a conspiracy theories that just links random things together and go "see, it all makes sense!"

It feels like I am talking to this person:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

• By sheer unfathomable coincidence, millions of people lost their savings because of Blockchain, and Blockchain as a whole is experiencing a "winter".

What even is your argument here? I really don't get it.

How does "people have lost money on bitcoins" prove any of your previous posts like "Ethereum mining is the reason why GPUs are expensive" and "Ethereum mining is responsible for 1% of the world's emissions"? 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Will Fedex technology bear fruit? If it won't, I'm sure it'll be just another unfathomable coincidence, nobody can really be sure Blockchain technology was the cause of Fedex failure. If it will, I'm sure it'll be the proof Blockchain technology was the future all along and all the savings, fuel and GPUs burnt along the way (without causing shortages at all) were worth it.

Dude, what? You seem extremely hostile towards me for no reason.

You asked how Fexed used blockchains and I replied with how any why. That was it. I made no comment on if I think it is a good system. I made no comment on if other solutions are better. I made no comment on any of that, just explained the situation to you.

You really need to chill a bit. You act like I am some kind of enemy that you need to defeat just because I answered your question about how Fexex uses a blockchain in a completely neutral way.

 

I was not neutral when I replied to you saying you were right in your previous post though which has resulted in this thread getting derailed.

Keep believing what you want dude, I feel like you and I discussing this is a waste of time. You've obviously made up your mind about this and won't change it regardless of what other explanations gets thrown at you.

Feel free to keep thinking what you want. I am leaving this thread because people are so emotional and irrational about anything involving the word "crypto".

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, LAwLz said:

lol no you weren't.

 

Global emissions were not reduced by 0.1 to 1% (which by the way was a very wide span). Electricity consumption != global emissions.

It was 0.2% of electricity emissions that were estimated to have been reduced, but electricity generation is an estimated ~25% of all emissions. So the reduction was 0.2% out of 25%. In other words, emissions dropped by 0,05%. You were off by up to 1900%.

He was talking about electricity / power consumption, then you bring up emmissions (which you admitted is an entirely different thing) to prove these electricity numbers wrong... This just looks like you're moving the goal post to make your argument.

 

Disclaimer: I don't have insight on past discussions between you two. This is just how it seems to me now.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

He was talking about electricity / power consumption, then you bring up emmissions (which you admitted is an entirely different thing) to prove these electricity numbers wrong... This just looks like you're moving the goal post to make your argument.

I recommend you go and look at the post he links, although I understand if you can't be bothered because the conversation is spread out across like 6 pages.

Anyway, he specifically said "global emissions". He has never once mentioned that he was talking about only electricity generation, and his original post was a response to me where I very deliberately used the word "global emissions". Every single time I mentioned emissions" in that other thread I was referring to more than just electricity consumption. I even specifically linked to sources and said that electricity consumption was only a small part of our emissions in that thread, which is why reducing power consumption doesn't have a major impact on our total emissions.

 

Him now changing his stance to "electricity consumption" is him moving the goalpost, not me. The conversation was always about the total emissions, not electricity consumption or production.

[descendency]

On 11/17/2022 at 9:40 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

no real world applications where the blockchain technology is the right tool for the job.

https://e-estonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020mar-nochanges-faq-a4-v03-blockchain-1-1.pdf

[05032-Mendicant-Bias]

On 11/24/2022 at 1:27 PM, LAwLz said:

Him now changing his stance to "electricity consumption" is him moving the goalpost, not me. The conversation was always about the total emissions, not electricity consumption or production.

I really am not in a number crunching mood... But I did skip a few steps when I claimed I was right about emissions, so it's only right that I elaborate the steps that led me to make a victory lap about the claim I made about emissions due to blockchain

My claim:  

On 4/7/2022 at 8:06 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

My answer: Without blockchain technology:

• Global emission would be reduced very slightly between 0.1% to 1%

My claim is about emission from blockchain technology.

 

There are two blockchains that use (Bitcoin)/used (Ethereum) PoW mining and were popular, Bitcoin and Ethereum. The rest are rounding errors in terms of energy comsumption. PoW mining is just that bad.

A piece of evidence backing the claim:

On 11/23/2022 at 9:10 PM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I even nailed my prediction about energy reduction. I had predicted between 0.1% and 1% had ethereum PoW disappeared.

 

Before the PoW to PoS switch, Ethereum proponents were making absurd outlandish claims, like Ethereum was green. As soon as it PoS arrived, proponents pointed to the energy savings as a win. Morally bankrupt, but it allows to put to rest those absurd claims for what they were and make use of them as evidence that Ethereum, and by extension Bitcoin, were never green, and PoW mining never will be, because of the perverse structural incentives behind the poorly thought out consensus mechanism.

 

Process:

I'll substantiate my claim about emission from blockchain in three steps:

1) Estimate how much of the world energy, the most energy hungry blockchains are(BTC)/were(ETH) gobbling.

2) Estimate how much emissions is caused by that use of energy

3) Check if emissions are within my claimed range

 

Step 1A) Bitcoin energy consumption:

This is easy. Take hashrate. Suppose the best equipment is used. And get the power consumption. Divide by the worldwide power and you get how much of the world energy Bitcoin is gobbling. This is a lowball figure, not all hashrate is accounted for, and not everyone is using the best possible hardware.

BTC uses more than 0.28% of the world power (lowball estimate)

 

Step 1B) Ethereum energy consumption:

We do the same, only we use the the best GPU. Ethereum had some ASICS mining, the bulk was GPU mining, as all gamers are painfully aware. Same caveats as before apply, this is a lowball figure, as it's below even proponents estimate, but confirms that the metodology gets the correct magnitude

ETH uses more than 0.1% of the world power (lowball estimate)

 

STEP1C) Blockchain Energy Use

The lowball of energy use for blockchain is 0.1% for ETH, and 0.28% for BTC for a total of 0.38% of the world power.

 

Vitalik's claim allows to reason that the more realistic power consumption is likely twice that, because people are not discarding old hardware to the landfill as soon as new, more efficient and profitable hardware is being released.

 

We are talking about twelve millions RTX3080 equivalent GPUs mining ETH and two and a half millions ASICS miners mining BTC. Manufacturer can never pump out hardware fast enough, so PoW miners tend to buy the output of factories in pallets at whatever price Nvidia and AMD demand.

 

As supporting evidence I remind that Nvidia was fined in 2022 for misrepresenting this transient direct sale of GPU to miners, as gaming demand, during the crypto boom of 2018 (when I happened to have to replace my own GPU and paid 200$ premium for it, thanks blockchain).

 

I'll be charitable and use the lowball estimate 0.38% of the world power is being gobbled by Blockchain.

 

STEP2) Estimate Blockchain emissions

This step is tricky. Mining rigs are powered by a mix of coal power plants to renewables. Coal tend to be cheaper, and blockchain miners will migrate continents to get the cheaper price, but, again, I will be charitable and assume blockchain mining rigs are drawing power from a moltitude of sources, and their footprint draw matches the average energy mix of an advanced economy.

 

This figure is doubly charitable (lowball estimate) in favour of blockchain for a second reason. Mining rigs are up 24/7 and are therefore a baseline demand on the grid. I should use emission from baseline plants (fossill fuel+nuclear), not the greener transient plants (renewables+gas).

 

For the scope of this discussion, that's good enough for me, I'm confident it'll get the correct magnitude. If this was an analisys to bring to the USA congress, I would put a lot more effort on geolocating hashrate and see how much of it is green or dirty.

About 25% of the emissions of our civilization come from electric power. And more than 0.38% of the that power is dedicated to Blockchain PoW mining (when Ethereum was still torturing GPUs) leading us to the final figure:

0.38% * 25% = 0.095%

Leading to the conclusion that Blockchain PoW mining is responsible for more than 0.095% of the world emissions.

STEP3) CHECK CLAIM

My claim was that Blockchain PoW mining was responsible for between 0.1% to 1% of the world emissions

A more through lowball estimate place it at least at 0.095%, within 5% of my claim. (P.S. That's a lot of precision for napkin math!)

More likely it sits at around twice that, accounting for miners that are using older hardware, and according to the claim of the retired Ethereum miners.

But even the most charitable estimation of emission from Blockchain technology are still within my claim.

 

Conclusions)

I know that my efforts in the scope of this discussion are futile. I did number crunching because I put forward a claim, and the onus was on me to elaborate the steps.

 

Fourteen years after Bitcoin emerged, it's still the most popular blockchain by far, and the Bitcoin network still uses a mindboggling 90 liters of gasoline worth of energy for each transaction it processes. Ethereum PoW was marginally better at six liters of gasoline worth of energy for each transaction it processed.  Blockchain technology is just that bad. It's at the point where it consumes less energy to drive a car hundreds of kilometers and hand over money by hand, rather than using the Bitcoin network.

 

This state of affairs has been going on for well over a decade. Bitcoin is no closer than it was fourteen years ago to transition to a less inept consensus mechanism, and what other blockchains do is irrelevant, Ethereum PoW was 1/3 the offender than Bitcoin PoW is. As long as Bitcoin keep wasting such an exorbitant amount of resources to get so little in return. All Bitcoin does, at the end of the day, is change entries in a databsase. That's it. Ninety liters of gasoline worth of energy, please!

 

It's worth pointing out again that at it's peak, twelve million RTX3080 equivalent GPUs were connected to the Ethereum network. The claim that this many GPUs being bought for up to 5X their MSRP was not a factor in the GPU shortages of 2017, 2018 and 2020 is truly absurd in my opinion.

[Heliian]

On 11/23/2022 at 8:05 AM, ravenshrike said:

FedEx says hello.

Oh, they said hello.   Here's a link to their grand vision:

 

https://fedexbusinessinsights.com/blockchain-technology-is-delivering-the-future-now/

 

Here's a quote from the page:

 

"The arrival of the metaverse has only increased the significance of blockchain technology. Cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) continue to grow in popularity, enabling purchases and value storage in virtual reality." 

 

Nailed it! 

 

 

[mr moose]

On 11/22/2022 at 3:00 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

I do wonder why ASX kept trying for so long... Maybe ASX really was closer than most to a useable blockchain?

If they are anything like other Australian companies they just kept going until every rock was turned and there was no way it was going to work. 

 

On 11/22/2022 at 3:00 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

Companies used to give up transitioning to blockchain very quickly, it doen't take long to see it's not fit for the job. I think it's used in the financial sector because buzzwords do bring in real investment.

 

Buzzwords are also great for giving everyday plebs the impression your are bleeding edge and on the verge of success that will go down in history.    We still have crypto ads on the radio every fucking day here in Aus.  You'd think people would have worked it out by now but they obviously keep falling for it.

 

 

[williamcll]

On 11/24/2022 at 4:10 AM, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

My rational hatred of blockchain will slowly subside, because ETH has spared the 4000 series of the horrible fate of crypto mining. Maybe with the 5000 series Jensen will realize only Crypto miners were willing to pay 3000$ for GPUs in pallets, and he'll be forced to sell GPUs at a reasonable price. 1200$ for a 4080 is not still a reasonable price. Better than 3000$ because of Ethereum PoW mining, but far from healed, the market is.

But would this also Reduce the price of chips from TSMC/Samsung, they are still hiking up prices yearly.