Slashdot Mirror


Inside BitFury's 20 Megawatt Bitcoin Mine

1sockchuck (826398) writes Bitcoin hardware vendor BitFury has opened a 20-megawatt data center to expand its cloud mining operations. The hashing center in the Republic of Georgia is filled with long rows of racks packed with specialized Bitcoin mining rigs powered by ASICs. It's the latest example of the Bitcoin industry's development of high-density, low-budget mining facilities optimized for rapid changes in hardware and economics. It also illustrates how ASIC makers are now expanding their focus from retail sales to their in-house operations as Bitcoin mining becomes industrialized.

127 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. 20 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    pissed away on trendy pointless crypto nonsense

    i can't believe this has gotten so stupid and out of hand

    1. Re:20 megawatts by alen · · Score: 1

      from what i read bitcoin is going to replace some of the kooky virtual currencies that multinationals have used for their virtual goods stores like the old MS coins to buy xbox games and DLC.

      the cost is paying to hedge against currency fluctuations and paying the exchange costs. bitcoin might solve this problem

    2. Re:20 megawatts by JazzLad · · Score: 4, Funny

      The hashing center in the Republic of Georgia...

      ...this is the perfect example of american greed...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    3. Re:20 megawatts by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1, Interesting

      i can't believe this has gotten so stupid and out of hand

      However, no bitcoin miner has been bailed out with my tax dollars. So they are still doing better than the "real" banks.

      Twenty megawatts at 5 cents per kwhr is about $1000/hour. Wall Street likely uses a thousand times as much just to light their offices.

    4. Re:20 megawatts by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its just the most wasteful thing i can think

      You should think harder. Gold fills much the same niche as bitcoins, and results in millions of tons of mine tailings, and mercury contaminated rivers. If bitcoin reduces the demand for gold by even 1%, every kilowatt is worth it.

    5. Re:20 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wait, what? You do know that the circuit boards and crap that go into the ASIC and computer rigs and the cooling and all uses a lot more natural resources (including gold and the things called "rare earths") than a bit of gold mining right? Ever seen the disposal sites for computers? Lots of tailings and contamination there too. Bitcoin mining is funny. People here love imaginary currency even though they don't like imaginary property. It is imaginary and wasteful. Let's just leave it there.

    6. Re:20 megawatts by Boronx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Modded down for telling the truth. These guys are wasting a small town's worth of power to do worthless calculations.

    7. Re:20 megawatts by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      That all depends on the ratio of waste/toxic material produced between gold and Georgian wattage, which I don't think that anyone has solid facts on. I'm guessing that power generation in the Republic of Georgia isn't the cleanest that the world has ever seen, being that it is in a small, former Soviet republic.

      So, despite the admitted use of some rather nasty chemicals and left overs from gold mining, what goes into those MW of power generation isn't necessarily any better.

      I'd love it if someone posted some numbers.

    8. Re:20 megawatts by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering that bitcoin isn't big enough, nor has it been around long enough to bail out, using the bank bailouts as a comparison is a specious justification.

      Just because a new system is different than a bad system, does not logically imply that it is a better system by default.

    9. Re: 20 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The USA made money on the bank bailouts. Big money . Most of the banking problems had to do with non enforcement of existing regulations and ignorant home buyers . If you make $40 k a year you can not buy a $600,000 house . Read the press clippings from the senator Charles shumer of the world, they were pressing the banks to lend to lower income people from 2004-2007 . Stop sounding like hitter blaming one group for the failings of the country .

    10. Re:20 megawatts by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Don't forget about the nasty chemicals and processes (and apparently, politics) involved in making computer components.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    11. Re:20 megawatts by ncc74656 · · Score: 3, Informative

      but this is the perfect example of american greed the most pure and wasteful greed i have ever seen.

      If you'd taken ten seconds to click over to TFA, you would've learned it's in this Georgia, not this Georgia, you America-bashing twat.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    12. Re:20 megawatts by rogoshen1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fiat currency for all intents and purposes is also imaginary, as the value it holds is not a fundamental property of the bill or coin itself. It just happens to be represented in a physical form.

      But that value only exists because the market by and large 'agrees' that this currency has this much purchasing power. See also: every single hyperinflation episode ever.

      (Then again some snotty muckraker might point out the fact that the USD is only maintaining its value through perceived military capability,nostalgia, and status as the de facto world currency.. (Which is likely temporary if things continue).

      IE, what's more wasteful, some computers in Georgia doing complex math, or propping up a currency/economy with an endless amount of unrecoverable debt, smart bombs, and drones?)

    13. Re:20 megawatts by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Never mind that the electricity might be made with coal, which itself results in millions of tons of mine tailings, contaminated rivers, et al, to say nothing of the pollution and radioactivity caused by burning it.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    14. Re:20 megawatts by phorm · · Score: 1

      Gold coins are fairly useless in functional value, but as a conductor or a rust-resistant coating gold is pretty common.

    15. Re:20 megawatts by pkinetics · · Score: 2

      Am wondering if this is a broken window argument

    16. Re:20 megawatts by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      governments come and go, just ask the ottomans

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    17. Re:20 megawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Doing some rough approximations (very rough) bitcoin mining electricity cost is roughly 6.2 times more expensive than mining gold...

      Assuming: 0.05$/kWhr,
      power cost at 1/4 $ value of bitcoin produced (rough guess based on yield of small scale bitcoin mining rigs I've witnessed),
      average gold ore at 2g/tonne,
      and average mining electrical consumption of 46.274kwhr/tonne ore (http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.nrcan.gc.ca/files/oee/pdf/publications/industrial/mining/open-pit/Open-Pit-Mines-1939B-Eng.pdf)

      20 megawatts generates $4,000 in bitcoin
      $4,000 is equivalent to 5 ounces gold (conservatively at $800/ounce)
      5 ounces is 140 grams, and 70 tonnes of ore at 2g/tonne
      approximate electrical expense to mine 70 tonnes of ore at 46.274 kwhr/tonne (value from link above) is 3.2 Megawatts... significantly less than bitcoin mining.

      Skimming the referenced report, the average energy cost/tonne ore includes mining, crushing/grinding, concentrating. so not counting refining and tailings/water management costs, but even at 1/4 of total electrical costs, bitcoin mining seems comparatively wasteful....

      There's likely arguments for fotprints and long term environmental impacts of mining, but bitcoin still seems wastefull.

    18. Re: 20 megawatts by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      it goes back to the 90s, this isnt just new to the new melinium. during The clinton admin it was made it easier for people who has no business buying homes to buy those homes. then wonder why everyone is foreclosing on them. Exactly as you said people making 40 grand a year should not be buying half million dollar homes.

      The people are just as much to blame for taking on something they should have known they couldnt afford, but the government never should have forced the banks to make those loans

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re:20 megawatts by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Difference is, at least light bulbs serve a useful function.

    20. Re:20 megawatts by pla · · Score: 1

      governments come and go, just ask the ottomans

      That's nobody's business but the Turks.

    21. Re:20 megawatts by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Who am I to decide? I'm a human with a functioning brain. Quit bitching about me using it and learn to use yours.

    22. Re:20 megawatts by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      if you are a human with a functioning brain, you would understand that all people have different needs based on many different factors. one persons needs might be the exact opposite of another. people need to stop telling others how to be and just worry about them selves (and yes i see the irony of me telling others what to do here)

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    23. Re:20 megawatts by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      but this is the perfect example of american greed the most pure and wasteful greed i have ever seen.

      If you'd taken ten seconds to click over to TFA, you would've learned it's in this Georgia, not this Georgia, you America-bashing twat.

      Now, now. They're probably not bashing America, but probably are American and just dumb.

    24. Re:20 megawatts by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      It looks like Georgia has a lot of hydro power. It's probably a good share of the power production too. Anywhere power is cheap (and they wouldn't be mining bitcoins there if it wasn't) they probably use renewables, because coal and natural gas have more or less the same price everywhere.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    25. Re:20 megawatts by jshazen · · Score: 2

      Plenty of other imaginary currency exist that do the exact same thing bitcoin does, but better and no electricity waste aka timekoin is a good example.

      I don't know. Timekoin looks pretty dodgy. Their "marketplace" has an expired SSL cert.

    26. Re:20 megawatts by Bramlet+Abercrombie · · Score: 1

      It's not even in America.

    27. Re:20 megawatts by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      And even if the electricity is produced by renewable means, it is consuming up that renewable source of electricity and forcing other users to get power from coal sources.

    28. Re: 20 megawatts by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Thats true as well I have been overlooking the home value lost to those who didnt fuck up

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    29. Re:20 megawatts by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Modded down for telling the truth. These guys are wasting a small town's worth of power to do worthless calculations.

      On more than one occasion I have used bitcoin - that I mined myself - to buy something useful.

      I created real money out of thin air using "worthless calculations" and then purchased a good or service with that money directly.

      Crypto mining is NOT worthless.

      Crypto is NOT going away.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    30. Re:20 megawatts by afxgrin · · Score: 1

      When the mining difficulty was low generating an appreciated $4000 worth of bitcoin cost a trivial amount of electricity. However, transaction processing than mining. Bitfury is just trying to squeeze the last little bit of lottery bitcoins from the mining algorithm. Comparing environmental impact on generating $4k of bitcoins vs mining gold is ridiculous, they don't compare at all.

      The power consumption by modern banks processing fiat currency transactions (mostly imaginary money) compared to bitcoin transaction processing is a better comparison, and even then Bitfury won't last much longer as the mining difficulty will result in diminishing returns. The overall transaction processing will become far leaner when the payout is purely on the transaction fees.

    31. Re:20 megawatts by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 2

      The technology that underlies bitcoin, data secured by a series of chained hashes, such that the hash for one data block is part of the data for the next, enables a secure record keeping system for electronic data. Any change to past data, whether from errors or malicious tampering, is detectable because re-hashing the contents of a data block will give a different result than the one stored in the next block.

      This is highly useful for a financial transaction system, the first application bitcoin represents. But secure digital record keeping applies to any kind of data whatsoever, and the applications are much wider than just digital currencies. To give one example, it can ensure the integrity of an operating system against malware. The original OS distribution and updates are encoded as a series of data blocks with chained hashes. Anything that is not supposed to be there would invalidate one or more blocks, and thus be detectable.

      Corporate scrip (i.e private currencies) is a trivial application by comparison.

    32. Re:20 megawatts by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      ...Just checking but... you're aware of where the Republic of Georgia is, right? (I couldn't find the source of what you seemed to be quoting, so I'm not sure of the context).

      The country has good high-speed Internet access (far better than the US, especially in Tbilisi, but even outside Tbilisi it's pretty good), relatively cheap real-estate, cheap-ish labour, relatively good banking system, relatively temperate climate compared to much of Europe and the power supply seems pretty stable - at least I've never experienced a power outage in any of the time I've spent there (probably a cumulative total of about a year over several visits) - and, compared to some other former-Soviet nations it's not doing too badly on the government/political/diplomatic front, either.

      For that matter, I'd highly recommend a visit - while technically not in Europe, Tbilisi in particular feels and looks quite European. From the US you can fly Turkish airlines from large airports (like Chicago) to Tbilisi via Istanbul; within the EU, Lufthansa flies from Munich (or if you're feeling adventurous, several airlines can take you via Kiev or Odessa), from Asia, Qatar Airways via Doha (with an hour stop in Baku).

      Passports from most developed countries (US/CA, UK/EU, AUS/NZ, Singapore etc) don't even need to arrange a visa before visiting: just show up at the border and get a stamp and use of English is not entirely out of the question (Russian or German may help, but they'll be super-impressed if you learn a few Georgian words).

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    33. Re:20 megawatts by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Never mind, looks like it was an AC above.

      Still. Visit Georgia. It's nice there.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    34. Re: 20 megawatts by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      If whoosh you, but ... :)

      Yeah, I've never been, but it's on the rather long list of places I'd like to visit if I'm ever adopted by a rich, but terminally ill uncle ...

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    35. Re: 20 megawatts by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Dang autocorrect :( this is why I don't usually do /. on a mobile

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    36. Re: 20 megawatts by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Depending on where you're flying from (the last couple of times I've been it's been from Chicago but I've also gone to/from there via Germany, Ukraine and Qatar depending on where I was starting), the fares are surprisingly reasonable.

      And changing money from USD/EUR/GBP is easy to do just about anywhere once you get there.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  2. Good Thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

    1. Re:Good Thing by maliqua · · Score: 1

      how would that work?

      Hey look this model of distributed computing that i only got into for personal profits, is pretty clever why don't i do it for free instead.

      the problem is the type of people that get heavy into bitcoin mining aren't the kinda that want to give back they're the kind that want to suck every bit of value from something and leave a withered husk for everyone else.

    2. Re:Good Thing by Burz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

      It just proves that a carbon tax cannot come soon enough.

    3. Re:Good Thing by ultranova · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

      How much energy is spent fighting against counterfeit cash? And do you perhaps think point-of-sale systems and credit/debit card systems or wire transfers require none? And armored trucks for moving money, those surely require no fuel?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Good Thing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      They did that in AU. It didn't help.

    5. Re:Good Thing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      It just proves that a carbon tax cannot come soon enough.

      Except that their mining centers are located in Iceland, Georgia (the country, not the state), and Finland, close to cheap carbon free hydro electric dams.

    6. Re:Good Thing by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Why did you spend 10 seconds writing that post when you could be contributing to the search for a cure for cancer?

      How many precious minutes have you wasted combing your hair? Trimming your toenails? Time's a-wastin'!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    7. Re:Good Thing by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      Folding and seti are equally as wasteful. Have either ever generated anything useful?

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    8. Re:Good Thing by jones_supa · · Score: 3, Informative

      Are you aware of the scientific papers Folding has published?

    9. Re:Good Thing by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

      It just proves that a carbon tax cannot come soon enough.

      Too bad it's a total scam (which we knew about way back in 2009, BTW):

      The new carbon credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance.

      Here's how it works: If [Cap and Trade] passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about $646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

      The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion.

      Read the whole piece here

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    10. Re:Good Thing by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      What other uses of energy do you disapprove of?

      Obviously not /.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    11. Re:Good Thing by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "I'm sure you spend 24/7 of your wakened time working on the betterment of humanity, such as curing cancer, resource capture and use (energy), materials science, space mining and other such industries."

      What a pathetic argument. You might as well say that only people who work in child abuse should find it distasteful. Get back under your bridge you pathetic troll.

    12. Re:Good Thing by Nimey · · Score: 2

      We'll /all/ be paying for it, which internalizes the costs and incentivizes cleaner alternatives. Our grandchildren shouldn't have to suffer extreme climate change because people like you are selfish.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    13. Re:Good Thing by Krishnoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I would say that SETI has produced one of the most useful pieces of software available today for the use of the general public.

    14. Re:Good Thing by pkinetics · · Score: 1

      Good gravy, these people would flip out if they can't cash out at the end.

      With the amount of money poured into bitcoins no one wants to be left holding the bag if the bottom were to fall out. So people will argue to keep it alive.

      I'm not saying that is a good or bad thing. All forms of currency and devaluations are like that.

    15. Re:Good Thing by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      please oh so wonderful anonymous coward, please enlighten us. What should we all be using electricity for since you seem to know what we should and shouldnt be using it for. SPEAK! and thou shalt listen to the all mighty anonymous coward!

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    16. Re:Good Thing by MrBigInThePants · · Score: 1

      So true.

      We live in the days of global warming and wanting to find new ways to be more efficient with our power use.

      But of course people burn megawatts to do useless calculations to "discover" hidden codes that are given "value" through mystical means - backed by fiat currency too just to make more of a mockery.

      Almost as bad as the stock exchange and all the high freq. traders....almost.....

    17. Re:Good Thing by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      why are you not using a better faster more efficient computer??? you are wasting all that time waiting for it to finish and blasting slashdot full of bullshit when you could be figuring out what models you need to manipulate... i mean publish

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    18. Re:Good Thing by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      During spring run off, hydro electric power can often have a wholesale price less than zero. It can damage the turbines to allow the water to flow without resistance, so they have to run them, and the surplus electricity has to go somewhere, so they pay people to take it.

      Three words:

      Giant
      Tesla
      Coils

    19. Re:Good Thing by Nethead · · Score: 1

      Quincy, Washington, US. Get on Google Maps and see if you can see which large buildings are data centers and which are potato warehouses. Hint, potatoes don't need backup generators. The big one is Microsoft.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    20. Re:Good Thing by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      It was overturned with good help from Australia's coal lobby, not quite the same as "didn't work".

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    21. Re:Good Thing by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      The reason that power is cheap there in the first place, is that it isn't easy to transport elsewhere and they have more of it than they can use for other things.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    22. Re:Good Thing by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      And do you perhaps think point-of-sale systems and credit/debit card systems or wire transfers require none?

      The Bitcoin network uses about $35 worth of energy to process a single transaction. Now, I don't know how much energy a single credit card transaction uses, but given the transaction fees that processing companies charge, I'm willing to bet that it's far, far less than $35 worth.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    23. Re:Good Thing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The Bitcoin network uses about $35 worth of energy to process a single transaction.

      This seems extremely unlikely, since processing a transaction means transmitting a few hundred bytes and doing doing some simple cryptography and database lookups.

      Now, I don't know how much energy a single credit card transaction uses, but given the transaction fees that processing companies charge, I'm willing to bet that it's far, far less than $35 worth.

      Yet for some reason you think this logic doesn't apply to Bitcoin transactions.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    24. Re:Good Thing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Actually it was working as advertised, that's why our current far right government was so hell bent on getting rid of it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    25. Re:Good Thing by buckfeta2014 · · Score: 1

      I don't have time to read all that. It all reads like marketing hogwash anyways.

      Honestly, if they want the CPU power, why can't they just buy their own computing cluster, instead of wearing out our computers and clogging the internet with all the data it sends back and forth?

      --
      Buck Feta. You know what to do.
    26. Re:Good Thing by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The hero's of the neo-con movement, Reagan and Thatcher, jointly proposed and won the existing international cap and trade treaty for sulphur emissions, the fact we rarely hear about the sulphur emissions market or acid rain these days is testament to how well it has worked for almost 30yrs now.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    27. Re:Good Thing by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

      Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

      I bet you would change your tune if you had been making bitcoins by the hundreds or thousands per day using just a cheap CPU, back when it first came out.

      Or, you did and you didn't keep them....

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    28. Re:Good Thing by Burz · · Score: 1

      "The government argues the carbon pricing scheme has been ineffective, but national emissions have actually fallen by 0.8% in the first calendar year of its operation, the largest fall in 24 years of records."

      http://www.theguardian.com/env...

    29. Re:Good Thing by Burz · · Score: 1

      That's not even a carbon tax. There has been a debate amoung environmentalists whether to support cap-and-trade or a tax, with those favoring the latter pointing out the same dysfunction you have.

      However, another poster pointed out that cap-and-trade can be made to work. Overall, I think it depends on both the magnitude of the proposal, and the level of corruption in the political economy ...and neither of those factors is looking good in the 21st century.

    30. Re:Good Thing by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all the power needed for a transaction is going to be the mining (a transaction isn't valid unless a miner has entered it into a block). So we can do a quick-and-dirty calculation; if we assume:

      - 150000 Thash/s total network performance
      - power consumption of 1kW per Thash
      - power cost of 10 cents per kWh
      - 6 blocks per hour
      - 400 transactions per block

      ((150000 * 0.1) / 6) / 400 = $6.25 per transaction

    31. Re:Good Thing by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all the power needed for a transaction is going to be the mining (a transaction isn't valid unless a miner has entered it into a block).

      That is incorrect. The validity of a transaction depends only on how it relates to the transactions that precede it. Mining simply keeps track of the "official" history of transactions, to guard against double-spend attacks.

      So we can do a quick-and-dirty calculation; if we assume:

      And that's another problem: the energy used for mining depends on the hashrate, not transaction rate. It's true that increasing popularity of Bitcoin rises both, but trying to calculate "energy per transaction" on that basis is pretty much the same as trying to calculate "drowned people per litre of ice cream consumed" on the basis that warm weather increases both.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    32. Re:Good Thing by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 2

      That is incorrect. The validity of a transaction depends only on how it relates to the transactions that precede it. Mining simply keeps track of the "official" history of transactions, to guard against double-spend attacks.

      Transactions are useless unless they're confirmed in the blockchain. That's the whole point of bitcoin. Mining and the blockchain is all there is to bitcoin.

      And that's another problem: the energy used for mining depends on the hashrate, not transaction rate. It's true that increasing popularity of Bitcoin rises both, but trying to calculate "energy per transaction" on that basis is pretty much the same as trying to calculate "drowned people per litre of ice cream consumed" on the basis that warm weather increases both.

      You might have noticed that my calculation started off with network hash rate because that's where the energy is being used. I don't really think it's that important a calculation anyway, but I did it to show the $35 per transaction of the OP was incorrect. Indeed, if the transaction rate goes up faster than the hash rate, then the transaction cost is even lower.

      Instead of criticizing, maybe you can come up with a better cost per transaction for bitcoin (because there surely is one).

    33. Re:Good Thing by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Uh. It had no useful impact on emissions, it cost more money to administrate than it generated, and it had negative economic impacts. So it failed to accomplish its goal even in part, it failed to provide additional revenue to fund other efforts, and it failed to create jobs.

      Of course the coal lobby had stake. It annoyed the coal lobby. It also cost the government money, and didn't do a damned thing it was supposed to. That counts as "didn't work".

    34. Re:Good Thing by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      I calculated from the other end: assuming that the Bitcoin market represents an efficient market (ie. sale prices are only slightly above production prices), and that the marginal cost of mining hardware is 0:

      - A bitcoin sells for $584
      - Mining a block generates 25 bitcoins
      - 144 blocks are mined per day
      - 63000 transactions per day

      584 * 25 * 144 / 63000 = $33.37 per transaction.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  3. Please answer me one question by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As far as I can judge, and please correct me if I am wrong, running a bitcoin mining farm isn't really something that ties up a lot of your time. I might be a bit naive, but... isn't it just "flip the switch and, well, wait"?

    If it's not so, the next question is probably moot, but if it is: Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves? To me the whole deal smells a bit like those crystal ball experts who tell you next weeks lottery numbers... why, if it works, don't they play themselves and get rich themselves?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Please answer me one question by maliqua · · Score: 1

      some do
      some don't

      i personally think that the ones that don't are just unwilling to gamble on an unstable 'currency'

    2. Re:Please answer me one question by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      The guys that made all the money during the San Francisco Gold Rush weren't the guys panning for gold, but the guys selling shovels and food. Same concept here. Why get out there and hope to "get lucky" on a completely unproven commodity when you can sell the equipment to the actual speculators? It's not just a matter of flipping a switch and waiting, btw, there's power consumption. A farm like in the article isn't running off house mains, generally speaking, not to mention the actual space, cooling, and probably a security system to make sure someone just doesn't come in and steal your shit (or defecate on everything because $DRUNK).

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Please answer me one question by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Selling bitcoin mining rigs is a guaranteed profit.

      Mining bitcoins is a potential profit, potential loss. It all depends on what happens to the value of bitcoins. Your reasoning only works if the equipment seller is absolutely certain that bitcoins will hold their value. From what I gather, the vast majority of people don't think they will, but will happily sell equipment to those who do.

    4. Re:Please answer me one question by ledow · · Score: 1

      There's datacentre-level maintenance but otherwise, yes.

      However, where you get rich is not in mining the coins for yourself - have you not seen the "mine your own bitcoins, just $X/month" adverts? You lease that crap out to people hoping to make a fast buck and/or hide their trail somewhat in converting currency to Bitcoins (sure, they bought a Bitcoin server - but which Bitcoin did they actually MINE? - it's quite difficult to trace if the hosting firm is willing to not keep traffic logs).

      But then, there are multitude of companies that employ other companies to do things that they could do themselves, and pay for the full cost + that intermediary's profit in order to do so.

      And when you have no customers? Well, you're not "losing" much on the business operation and always have a stock of "cash" coming in even with zero customers....

    5. Re:Please answer me one question by magarity · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves?p>

      It's right there in the opening phrase; this IS a case of someone who sells the systems using it themselves: "Bitcoin hardware vendor BitFury has opened ..."

    6. Re:Please answer me one question by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Risk.

      You can make a lot of money building up bitcoins. It may take a year to get your investment back, and then 3 years to get major profitability. You're going to essentially be rich as fuck in 10 years' time.

      In 2 months, the bitcoin market might crash. This bubble has to pop some time. By cashing out the marginal value of your bitcoin mining rig now, you reap immediate guaranteed profits and transfer the risk of loss to the customer.

    7. Re:Please answer me one question by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      Those who buy the rigs have money and business connections, but don't know how to build good rigs. Those who build them don't have money or connections, but plenty of experience making rigs.

      Sometimes those two capabilities overlap, but there's a lot more investors out there than there are computer hardware experts.

    8. Re:Please answer me one question by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      i personally think that the ones that don't are just unwilling to gamble on an unstable 'currency'

      Or they know it's yet another doomed-to-fail commodities market that favors the big players over everyone else.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:Please answer me one question by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves?

      one might ask the same question of companies that sell industrial mining equipment.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:Please answer me one question by businessnerd · · Score: 1

      The miners can sell the coins as soon as they are produced.

      Yes, but will they be selling those coins at a profit or a loss? It costs money to produce coins (equipment, electricity, physical space, etc.). Let's assume that when you begin mining, the the sale price of BTC will allow you to turn a profit. But as we have seen, the sale price of BTC can fluctuate wildly. If the price falls below your starting price, you will no longer be turning a profit, but be bleeding money.

      If the "majority of people" think bitcoins are overvalued, then they would be shorting them, and the value would fall. The current price is the consensus price where buyers and sellers are balanced.

      This statement assumes that everyone who knows what bitcoin is and has an opinion on it is actively participating in the bitcoin economy. This is untrue. The majority of people who don't think bitcoins will hold their value have chosen not to participate in the bitcoin economy at all and are investing elsewhere.

      --
      "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    11. Re:Please answer me one question by chispito · · Score: 1

      Selling bitcoin mining rigs is a guaranteed profit.

      ...assuming a guaranteed buyer.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    12. Re:Please answer me one question by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There is still a considerable amount of time investment necessary to turn mining equipment into iron ore.

      Turning Bitcoin mining equipment into bitcoins is ... well, turn it on. Wait.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    13. Re:Please answer me one question by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Risk aversion. If you mine the coins, you're subject to the highly unpredictable swings of the market - your vast bitcoin fortune could be reduced to a tiny fraction overnight. If you rent the miners, then even if that happens you still have your money.

    14. Re:Please answer me one question by retchdog · · Score: 1

      The miners can sell the coins as soon as they are produced.

      yes, but the production itself takes a long time (and exponentially longer with each one, by design). mining bitcoin is basically taking a long-ish position on bitcoin, as solandri implied. selling the mining equipment instead of using it is basically a hedge; it reduces risk. a rational portfolio would include some amount of both.

      so the manufacturers may not be shorting bitcoin, but it seems that they're not very eager to take a long position on it either, whatever that's worth.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    15. Re:Please answer me one question by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves?

      They'd lose money by giving up their competitive advantage. Specifically, while anyone with money can buy bitcoin mining gear, very few people can build some. Produce and sell the mining gear, and you get guaranteed and instantaneous profits. Also, producing the specialized computers you're competing against other businesses; mining bitcoins you're competing against everyone who follows the "easy money this way" sign. Also if the latter group is optimistic, it means you can sell the mining gear at higher than its actual value.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
  4. Hold on here, boy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    First of all, here in Georgia, we are a State in the US of Fucking A!

    Secondly, what the fucking Hell does Athletic shoes have to do with Bitcoin?

    1. Re:Hold on here, boy! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      First of all, here in Georgia, we are a State in the US of Fucking A!

      Secondly, what the fucking Hell does Athletic shoes have to do with Bitcoin?

      Pity that they are talking about the country in Eurasia and not the US state. Or that when the state of Georgia seceded from the US it referred to itself as the "Republic of Georgia".

      Methinks you should pay more attention to the world around you.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  5. Waste of power by Scottingham · · Score: 1

    What a colossal waste of power. Personally, I'd like to see a cryptocurrency where the production of the coins is directly related to the amount of energy produced by a particular source.

    For example, a 3MW solar farm could produce N number of coins every day. But a 3GW nuclear plant could produce 3000N coins every day. This way the power can be still use productively but the currency is directly tied to the energy produced. So essentially it'd be a non-fiat currency based on the real world.

    1. Re:Waste of power by Yebyen · · Score: 1

      "based on the real world" so, you mean, in fact completely unreal and made of unicorn dust.

      How would you tie energy generation to coins? I'm assuming the point of your proposed solution is that the coins are a reward for generating energy, and producing the coins does not actually consume the power. So, how do you make it provably fair? Install ammeters at each generation site with embedded DRM protections?

      Why not just sell the power?

      --
      Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
    2. Re:Waste of power by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      Good points. The details are obviously scarce as I'm not sure of the best way to go about doing this. Something like the ammeters like you suggest is what I was envisioning.

      As for not just selling the power...Ideally this scheme would be used to provide a basic income for those who do not have any money to start with. Sure, selling some of the power might help to provide a measure of viability. I'm thinking this would be a basis for a basic income that isn't completely detatched from reality. 'Based on the real world' means that the coins couldn't be created out of thin air like dollars.

      Pie in the sky? Sure. I'm just a dude with visions of a world without slums made viable through abundant nuclear energy. Sigh...

    3. Re:Waste of power by Scottingham · · Score: 1

      I would think a transparent and open process would go a long way to stop people from gaming the system. Of course it'd be an ongoing battle though. If the power were delivered in discrete chunks, say in large battery units or something, it'd be easier to keep track of and harder to hack.

      This idea is a work in progress, but I haven't heard any serious show-stopping critiques yet.

    4. Re:Waste of power by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      What a colossal waste of power.

      The electricity that goes in Bitcoin mining is essentially converted to 100% heat. So the problem can be avoided every time when the heat can be utilized somehow, for example to warm up a house. Which is, of course, almost never. ;)

    5. Re:Waste of power by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      I've thought of this possibility, though in a different manner. Off-grid solar. Those setups need enough panel capacity to generate requirements during cloudy winter days, which means that in summer or better weather they have excess capacity - once the batteries are charged, it's just going to waste. So it might make sense to put this 'free' energy into something like bitcoin mining or scientific computing.

      If you had a really big off-grid renewable setup, you could concievably rent out the space: Put your gear in this small rack, we'll sell you power at a tenth the price of the grid operator, but only on the understanding that we can't promise when you'll get it and you have to be ready to go into power-saving mode when the clouds start lingering.

  6. Environmental ROI? by nickovs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This begs the question whether mining for BitCoins is more damaging to the environment than mining for precious metals, for a given value of return. The EPA emissions factor for electricity is about 0.69 tons of CO2 per megawatt hour, so producing the electricity used by this datacenter is, on average, dumping into the atmosphere 331 tons of CO2 per day or about 120,000 tons of CO2 per year. While there are many other forms of environmental damage from gold mining, a quick search suggest that the greenhouse emissions from gold extraction run to about 11.5 tons of CO2 equivalent per kg of Gold. At this rate 120,000 tons of CO2 yields of 10.5 tons of gold, worth nearly $500 million at today's price. Will this datacentre yield more than half a billion dollars worth of bit coins each year?

    --
    If intelligent life is too complex to evolve on its own, who designed God?
    1. Re:Environmental ROI? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      The EPA emissions factor for electricity is about 0.69 tons of CO2 per megawatt hour, so producing the electricity used by this datacenter is, on average, dumping into the atmosphere 331 tons of CO2 per day or about 120,000 tons of CO2 per year

      Given that the data center is in the Republic of Georgia and not the US state of Georgia I don't think that the EPA estimates really have any relevance. If anything the numbers are probably much much worse.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Environmental ROI? by Shatrat · · Score: 1

      A) No it doesn't beg the question. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
      B) Electricity in the Republic of Georgia is almost all Hydroelectric.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    3. Re:Environmental ROI? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Why should the numbers be "much much" worse?
      Neither are the laws of physics different in the Republic of Georgia nor are the coal plants in the US state of Georgia known to be particular efficient.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:Environmental ROI? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Except you can't really power most precious metal mines with solar or wind

      Nor can you build a datacenter without a couple metric shit-tonnes of rare earth minerals.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Environmental ROI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Recycleable rare earth metals.

    6. Re:Environmental ROI? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Which get recycled at such a high rate we've stopped mining them?

      C'mon, man.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    7. Re:Environmental ROI? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      I thought the trouble with mining gold was more to do with the "interesting" chemicals used to separate a few specks of gold from a few tons of rock, than the energy cost of the process. Not that the computers used for bitcoin mining don't themselves require lots of "interesting" chemicals.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    8. Re:Environmental ROI? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Europe has very strict laws which everyone ignores requiring recycling of electronic waste.

    9. Re:Environmental ROI? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Europe has very strict laws which everyone ignores requiring recycling of electronic waste.

      Ah, so just like battery recycling in the US. Brilliant.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  7. YUO == FAIL IT! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    A gen- U -ine redneck wouldn't know that Asics is a brand of athletic shoe.

    They should have used these resources to research the Nine Million Names of God to immanentize the eschaton .

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  8. What an absolutely outrageous waste of resources. by MarkvW · · Score: 1

    Stupid.

  9. Miners vs. mining-equipment mfgrs by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves?

    There is less uncertainty and other risks in making and selling mining rigs than in mining.

    Also, to "do it right," mining on a large scale requires some some BC-mining expertise that making equipment doesn't have. Granted, this "expertise" isn't very much (yet) - it amounts to things like legal compliance (where applicable - not very many places if any as of today but probably many places soon), whether you want to provide "washing/anonymizing" services and if so at what cost, what is the lowest transaction fee you are willing to accept under a given circumstance (e.g. if electricity costs less at night, you may be willing to take a lower fee), etc.

    There is a parallel question in the real world with a parallel answer:
    Why do people/companies that make oil-drilling rigs sell them instead of just using them to drill for oil themselves? Answer: Different risks and different areas of expertise. Oil exploration companies have or hire expertise in how to scout for possible deposits, how to negotiate mineral leases, how to operate oil rigs, how to handle legal compliance, etc. etc. - things that the rig-manufacturing companies would prefer not to do.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  10. Why not? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    Okay, I'll grant you that equipment that uses engines which require more power than today's electric engines of the same size can produce can't feasibly be done with wind or solar. Ditto for portable equipment where the size or weight of today's electric engines + batteries is more than the size or weight of the comparable non-electric engine.

    But any mining equipment which could be run off of an electric engine and where the size or weight of an electric engine + batteries is acceptable could be run or recharged off of electric mains. The power on these mains can come from "green" sources, assuming of course that a "green" power plant exists or could be built close enough to attach to that region's power grid. That assumption may not hold in some non-developed countries.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  11. Could Be Curing Cancer by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

    Good thing you're not solving real problems. What. A. Fucking. Waste.

    This a thousand times over. Run this equipment with World Community Grid or Folding@Home, might lead to curing cancer or AIDS. Fuck, just donate it to some medical research effort and maybe in 20 years a cure will come out and save your ass.

    Bitcoin? Megawattage flushed down the entropy hole. Wouldn't it suck for all the bitcoiners if a talented mathematician found a way to trivially circumvent the bitcoin exchange system or if someone came up with a new cryptocurrency that people just liked better (I think both are just a matter of time), leaving Bitcoiners with worthless data stored on hard drives. Maybe all that fine computing equipment won't end up in the landfill, but that's a lot of heat and fossil fuel gone for nothing.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
    1. Re:Could Be Curing Cancer by TheTrueScotsman · · Score: 1

      This a thousand times over. Run this equipment with World Community Grid or Folding@Home

      How would that work? Do any of these tasks benefit from a metric fuckton of SHA-256 rounds?

    2. Re:Could Be Curing Cancer by WheezyJoe · · Score: 1

      Insightful response... would mod you up if I could.
      agree that only time will tell if Bitcoin will pay off for all the energy and the dedicated silicon being put to it (hopefully not headed for the landfill). I maintain that the effort would be far better spent on medical research, but humans will be humans, betting on maybe getting rich is more fun than betting on maybe curing a disease you might get in ten years. but rich or not, being sick sucks.

      This a thousand times over. Run this equipment with World Community Grid or Folding@Home, might lead to curing cancer or AIDS. Fuck, just donate it to some medical research effort and maybe in 20 years a cure will come out and save your ass.

      I'm sure specialized circuits that do SHA256 and only SHA256 will be incredibly useful when donated to medical research. Yep.

      Seriously. The days of using general purpose hardware in bitcoin mining operations are long gone.

      You can also think about this differently. The energy isn't wasted to make money out of nothing. Energy and highly specialized and efficient hardware are used to secure a distributed ledger and payment system against attacks from powerful adversaries by increasing up the cost of attacks. The money miners make is payment for this service they provide.

      Wouldn't it suck for all the bitcoiners if a talented mathematician found a way to trivially circumvent the bitcoin exchange system or if someone came up with a new cryptocurrency that people just liked better (I think both are just a matter of time), leaving Bitcoiners with worthless data stored on hard drives.

      Former might happen or not. Mathematical breakthroughs that lead to catastrophic failure of the system seem unlikely however. The current design is pretty resilient. If SHA256 is broken, there'll be a big mess, but the community may decide to switch to a different algorithm, fixing it with a hard fork. Even breaking ECDSA has limited impact, unless you can break keys in under 10 minutes. Even then, your attack will be probabilistic at best.

      As for new cryptocurrencies, there are loads of them and one or two actually have some worthwhile new features. Guess who'll know about them before you do? Bitcoiners. Guess what they'll do with their Bitcoin holdings when they find new ones that look interesting? Go to an exchange and buy some using Bitcoin.

      --
      Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  12. Please donate by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    Donate 1000 satoshi or more to my microwallet (17Yvsma9tfiuqVP7QhsFE2VmsFpTEMy17P). All donations will be used to pay for the time needed to write funny comments on Slashdot.

  13. ASIC is the real innovation by zerosomething · · Score: 1

    Money (exchangeable value) has always driven innovation. The application-specific integrated circuits made just for Bitcoin math were rapidly developed and produced in mass quantities in multiple variations. All of this if about a 2 year span at most. These the ability to quickly design and produce ASIC chip is real innovation here and actually commodity. It won't be long now before we have ASIC for all kinds of number crunching and specific tasks. It's hardware that's innovating and changing nearly as fast as software. I bet on this as a new wave of tech. Multipurpose CPUs are likely going to become just small components in a much larger system replacing what we know as computers.

    --
    It all starts at 0
    1. Re:ASIC is the real innovation by fgodfrey · · Score: 1

      The ability to quickly design and produce an ASIC is hardly new or innovative here. ASICs are one of the few pieces of computing that you can get done faster if you just throw more people at the problem. Plus, I have a strong suspicion that most Bitcoin mining ASICs are Gate Array ASICs (http://www.fujitsu.com/emea/services/microelectronics/asic/asic/techprod/gatearray/) which, if my understanding of them is correct, use a bunch of standard layers and interconnect them with a few custom layers. That reduces the number of masks needed as well as reducing NRE charges and minimum quantities. Essentially, it's an FPGA where the interconnection is hard wired.

      Now as to your prediction that multipurpose CPUs may go away (or become a small piece of a computer), that may turn out to be true. Special purpose ASICs to solve specific problems in high performance computing have been proposed many times, though to my knowledge, not actually built. At some point, though, someone will build one. Especially as the feature sizes stop getting smaller, going to custom logic to solve problems will be the next logical way to speed things up. However, the current generation of Bitcoin mining isn't going to be contributing anything to it.

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
  14. *Shakes head* by Chas · · Score: 1

    All this effort, resources and real money being flushed down the drain for imaginary currency.

    Whoever ACTUALLY coined the phrase attributed to P.T. Barnum was off by a factor of measurement at least.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:*Shakes head* by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      The existence of Bitcoin still makes the world more interesting.

    2. Re:*Shakes head* by Chas · · Score: 1

      So does Ebola and Militant Islam, if you wanna get right down to it.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
  15. low budget? by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 1

    20 million dollar data center is low budget?

  16. Selling shovels to the guillible by sjbe · · Score: 1

    Why would anyone SELL bitcoin mining rigs instead of simply building them and getting rich themselves?

    Same reason that people sell get rich quick schemes to the gullible rather than getting rich off the scheme themselves. They know there is no profit to be had in the actual mining of bitcoins but there is money to be had selling virtual shovels to those dumb enough to not figure this fact out.

    If you really could make millions mining bitcoins why would you tell anyone?

  17. The real winners by neo-mkrey · · Score: 1

    are the utility companies.

  18. Which ASIC is worth trying ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are numerous offerings of bitcoin / altcoin asics in the market and often the information available are confusing

    Which ASIC (or ASICs) are more efficient (in terms of result and/or in terms of result per unit of energy consumed ?

    Any suggestion ?

    Thanks !

  19. They do mine with your equipment before shipping by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    Almost all hardware manufacturers *do* mine with all the hardware they make. They make it and mine with it even after you have paid for it. They then ship it to you right before the break-even point. There are endless stories out there about missed shipping deadline after missed shipping deadline, mining hardware companies making empty promises, and would-be miners receiving hardware a few months too late, by which point their projected return is orders of magnitude smaller than it would have been due to the increase in network hash rate between when they paid for the hardware and when they received it.

  20. Missed Opportunity by vomitology · · Score: 1

    They should be thinking bigger... imagine how much WoW gold you could farm with that! ( :

    --
    ~Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but Wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.
  21. Until the last bitcoin by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    What will they do with all that computing power once they will have mined the last bitcoin? I wonder if such setup could be crack and steal existing bitcoins.

    1. Re:Until the last bitcoin by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      We will find out in about two years. The number of coins generated per block falls in half every 210,000 blocks, which is about 4 years. Two years is when the next halving is due. Half the mining hardware will become uneconomic to use at that time.