View Single Post
  #12  
Old 28-01-2021, 05:37 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 20,241
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by PurpleCabbage
I remember vividly we had just finished a full energy efficiency installation at a remote data center some high volume of LED lights & adjustable valves on condenser pumps were installed to essentially revamp our power usage at a 20,000sqf facility, a smaller center for Seattle. One of our tenants was interested in some volume of the floor for their mining operation, that we quickly Vetoed. Simply because of the reality they were there to burn Heat energy to make a profit, I think of traditional mining, well this clearly has a direction and is it up?

What are the long term repercussion in a quantum state if we are essentially trading equipment volume for heat energy to accumulate a fluctuating asset? Even if it can become valuable, essentially it has to botch the scarcity or demand value somehow to get people to use it, hence the limited quantity. Well the cost of star heat is enormous although I don’t necessarily trade it for currency(Some probably do). Will mining always be a medium for exchange? In theory, if the times during when it was implemented remain as a high value in our society. This goes into Value economics instantly, if it’s clean, was intended for good productive value & can be verified by enough people consistently as in “yes we got rich and we added to humanity in a positive way” then the legacy will remain above the threshold and people will continue to respect it & it’s value. Plenty of traded currencies no longer exist with powerful faces on the front because of their directional leadership attribution.

My main concern is when they got the instant Veto from operations, running hundreds of data centers. How above ground can a mining operation propel a society above ground? Who is leading the face of the currency? How can this be universalized in a positive value?

I think of the realities here in Washington state where Amazon thrives, although not everyone here is actually happy about it, because of the volume of small businesses that are effected. The currency pools and quality of life is well influenced, and not necessarily to any one person, hubris is often reality, while my experience errs on the side of fluctuating time physics. Then we have Alibaba from China, China took the backseat to the internet, watched patiently, & they manage to set up the highest volume sales day globally, and they did it with a more small business friendly network. Leadership is always learning.

CEOs will continually represent their total network value even long after they have moved onto other avenues of leadership. who will keep the name of the currency alive & thriving?

I will hold faith in consciousness because of those involved, that the directional leadership of the owner of that currency is seeking to exemplify positive attributes to humanity. That they Go Vegetarian, Go Vegan, & maybe try some cabbage. (Can someone cc Zion)

Namaste
-Jesse




That's wild. It's a quality post, and therefore an internet rarity.



The currency needs A LOT of electricity to drive the mines which create the blocks - a LOOOOTTT!.



It is extremely inefficient on face value, but I think less energy is used to mint 10K of Bitcoin than energy used to produce 10K in Gold.



For a miner, expenses are the cost of electricity, space leasing and depreciation of hardware. The mining machines produce a ton of heat and make a lot of noise.



If the price of a coin falls too low the mines run at a short term loss (I think it's somewhere like 12-15K per coin break even, not sure) Everytime there is a 'Halvening' (when the rate of supply is halved) it becomes more expensive to mine a coin.


This leads to a major problem because as the reward in coins for mining becomes less viable, miners increasingly rely on transaction fees. When issuance of new coins ceases at 21M coins, miners will be reliant on transaction fees alone, which will make using the coins for smaller transactions prohibitively expensive.


Hence, I do not see Bitcoin as energy efficient, nor as sustainable asset in its current form, because it requires increasing amounts of energy over time to mine. As mining becomes impossibly expensive, and terminates in the future, miners' bitcoin rewards will have to be made up for in transactions to keep the currency afloat.


It all relies on the coins becoming extremely valuable, and ultimately, a high velocity of transactions.
Reply With Quote