Slashdot Mirror


Bitcoin Backlash as 'Miners' Suck Up Electricity, Stress Power Grids in Central Washington (seattletimes.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: Public hearings for rural electric utilities are rarely sellout events. But the crowd that showed up in Wenatchee two weeks ago for a hearing about Bitcoin mining in Chelan County was so large that utility staff had to open a second room with a video feed for the overflow. The turnout wasn't surprising. Chelan County, along with neighboring Douglas and Grant counties, has been at the center of the U.S. Bitcoin boom since 2012, when the region's ultracheap hydropower began attracting cryptocurrency "miners."

[...] As a result, an area famous for apples, wheat and conservative politics has been transformed into a kind of cyber-boomtown, with Bitcoin mining operations that range from large-scale, state-of-the-art warehouses to repurposed cargo containers to backyard sheds. By the end of this year, according to some estimates, the Mid-Columbia Basin could account for as much as 30 percent of the global output of new Bitcoin and large shares of other digital currencies, such as Litecoin and Ethereum. But as in any boomtown, success has come at a cost. As the cryptocurrency industry morphs into larger, more energy-intensive operations, the Basin's three public utilities districts (PUDs) are reassessing how they deal with it, and whether they can -- or should even try to -- keep up.

115 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Insanity by senileoldfart · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is there any evidence of intelligent life on Earth?

    1. Re:Insanity by senileoldfart · · Score: 1

      You're gonna have some splainin' to do, one day, to your grandkids.

  2. Code enforcement, tiered pricing by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hope the Bitcoin mining hardware and its installation conforms exactly to the local electrical code. Also, home users of more than a certain number of kWh per month should expect to pay more per kWh. Bitcoin is interesting, but it's a horribly wasteful way of transacting business.

    1. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The problem isn't that these machines are out of electrical code, but the combination of all these machines is putting a strain on an otherwise not busy electrical grid.

    2. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      The invisible hand of the market should fix this, you know, by spotting an opportunity and throttling it with price scales that kill it off entirely.

      0-50kWh/day at 10c (or whatever it is now)
      50+ at $1

      No worries.

    3. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      You missed the part about “conservative politics.” But, those are the right solutions to the problem.

    4. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      China already controls bitcoin. unless you are looking to do a 5 fold increase in the US you are completely at the mercy of the Chinese government for bitcoin at the moment.

    5. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The invisible hand of the market should fix this

      You are proposing abuse of monopoly pricing power. That is not "the invisible hand of the market".

      0-50kWh/day at 10c (or whatever it is now)
      50+ at $1

      No worries.

      That would put a lot of local companies out of business.

      How about this instead: Charge enough to cover costs, and don't worry about what customer is doing with it. They paid for it, so it is theirs.

    6. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Zaelath · · Score: 5, Informative

      There was a fair bit of sarcasm in there, but "Charge enough to cover costs" is a lot more complex when you need to run up more capacity AND your market is artificially saturated by users that will evaporate if you increase pricing to cover the increased capacity.

    7. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      They haven't paid for it. They've paid for what they've used in the past, and nobody is suggesting charging them again for it. They haven't paid for the generation of future electricity, and there's every right to increase the cost of it for that electricity, or to limit the amount they're able to buy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    8. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Charge what it costs" also calls for higher prices at higher usage, when meeting that demand requires supplies beyond what was planned and contracted for based on normal usage and has to be purchased on the spot market, and when local grids have to be upgraded to handle the demand. Which is demand that will go elsewhere on a moment's notice if the power cost elsewhere is lower. This is not a productive industry making significant local capital investments.

    9. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      They could just ban any electronic way to exchange cryptocurrency through US companies (ie. banks and credit card companies).

      Then they wouldn't have to ban mining, because cryptocurrency would be dead.

    10. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2

      You are proposing abuse of monopoly pricing power. That is not "the invisible hand of the market".

      They're the exact same thing. Or rather, I challenge you to tell me how they are different.

      don't worry about what customer is doing with it

      That's beyond stupid. Knowing how long you have a customer who will be using X kw/hours lets you know how much to put into long term investments to serve them.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    11. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by spth · · Score: 1

      Is this model of cheap electricity up to a certain limit per household a US thing?

      Normally one would expect good to become cheaper when bought in bulk. Especially for something like electricity, where the infrastructure for delivery has a substantial cost (so it is much more expensive to deliver x units to y housholds, with their wiring and meters each, than delivering x*y to a single bulk consumer).

      Also unlike cooking and air conditioning, which tend to require electricity at a set time, bitcoin mining is very flexible. So the electricity companies could offer them flexible rates depending on current spot prices. Then miners could switch off their rigs during peak electricity demand, and mostly mine when there is excess electricity available (during times of low demand, or high supply). That way they would even help stabilize the network,

    12. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by PingPongBoy · · Score: 1

      Technically, yes, miners and energy providers are within certain rights.

      However, it seems that a lemming has popped up and seen the precipice. Now it shouts.

      People aren't lemmings. People see a problem coming. Are miners lemmings? Are they too invested or too greedy to stop? Just remember, if the grid has to be upgraded upgraded upgraded upgraded it's your tax money (or else move) and what do you get out of it?.

      --
      Know your pads. One time pad: good for cryptography. Two timing pad: where to take your mistress.
    13. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      There was a fair bit of sarcasm in there, but "Charge enough to cover costs" is a lot more complex when you need to run up more capacity AND your market is artificially saturated by users that will evaporate if you increase pricing to cover the increased capacity.

      Then what you need to do is find the evaporation point, and set the pricing there, until enough evaporate to balance things out :)

    14. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which is precisely what the complaining is about. Locals suddenly paying an artificially inflated price due to non-real demand.

    15. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by xvan · · Score: 1

      Not what you're using it for, that's not their fucking business. But they could enforce contracts above certain consumption, so that your demand can't just evaporate with fluctuations of BTC.

    16. Re: Code enforcement, tiered pricing by xvan · · Score: 1

      If it isn't a good idea anywhere else, why would it be here? Where do you do with the other (real) industries that require that power.

    17. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by xvan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Normally one would expect good to become cheaper when bought in bulk. Especially for something like electricity, where the infrastructure for delivery has a substantial cost

      The issue with BTC is that, even if the price of power was fixed (which it isn't), the price of BTC isn't. Miners go on/off if their expected return is above certain threshold.
      This stochastic consumption doesn't justify the investment required to accommodate the miners on the grid.

    18. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The electric car owners will be so happy with this...

    19. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      Meters do in fact have a Main disconnect directly behind the meter, the wire from the transformer to the meter does not have an interrupt.

    20. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by spth · · Score: 1

      While bitcoin prices are fluctuating, there is still the price of the mining hardware to be considered. At dropping bitcoin prices, buying new mining hardware would become unprofitable far before continuing to run existing hardware would become unprofitable.

    21. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      How about this instead: Charge enough to cover costs, and don't worry about what customer is doing with it. They paid for it, so it is theirs.

      So, when you say "costs", are you talking about their personal costs, or the cost + externalities?

    22. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but suppose they do upgrade the local grid to handle higher demand. And then, over time, the people who use more actually cost less per watt due to economies of scale. And then you have a system which encourages people to be wasteful.

    23. Re:Code enforcement, tiered pricing by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you actually read Adam Smith, then invisible hand of the market is something that arises when government looks over the shoulders of business and enforce fairness and market access.

      Without regulation, Capitalism predicts the established interests will collude and strangle the market, leading to a weak economy.

      If these bitcoin miners are using an excessive amount and it is harming the resource, then the natural Capitalist response is to have the Government enforce some sort of sharing system. This is actually the whole reason that in the US the government doesn't normally engage in business! So that they can be the neutral third party necessary for Capitalism.

  3. Re:Just say no by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 3, Interesting

    200A at 240V (what most US houses have) can mine a lot of coin. Remember that amps are PEAK load, and most houses use maybe 1/10 of that on average through a day. So there's still room for Bitcoin mining even with average electrical service.

  4. Re: Do something useful with that extra. by DaHat · · Score: 1

    The electrical costs of most manufacturing is less than the labor cost, which has long been the reason for outsourcing

  5. Re:Or grow-ops ? by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    If weed is legal, why do the grow-ops need to be indoors and using grow-lites?

  6. Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?

    1. Re:Electron neutrality by Zaelath · · Score: 2

      Nope, not even close to being comparable. It's like suggesting you should be putting the same safety restrictions on a doll house as an actual house.

    2. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Really? Safety? We're talking about amount of consumption, not the gauge of wire coming into the service.

    3. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Precisely -- and moreover, if we detect you're running a mining operation, your electricity capacity will be lowered at the meter even if you're within the stated capacity.

    4. Re:Electron neutrality by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity while at the same time arguing that its none of ISP's business how their data pipes are used, no?

      It's an interesting point, but it can't work in practise. With both data connections and electricity, if you're doing industrial scale work then you have to be properly connected. If you're serving a lot of data you need to be on the trunk connection, if you're arc welding then you need to be plugged directly into the grid, and the electric providers and you need to communicate and coordinate. There is a fundamental difference between residential use and business use and is why this stuff is zoned and controlled, otherwise chaos.

      If you're struggling to pay your bills and your electric is getting more expensive because someone else is using the cheap residential rates to run their money-generation machine, that can't be OK... One person is paying for electricity to live, the other is using it to run machines that make them money. These actions aren't equivalent.

    5. Re:Electron neutrality by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      It's an analogy, in that network capacity and grid capacity are only linked by the word "capacity".

    6. Re:Electron neutrality by ErstO · · Score: 1

      Huge .... Huge difference

      Bitcoin mining puts strains on public utilities, when these utilities are forced to upgrade the local grid to accommodate these miners all residence of this community will face higher rates regardless if the are miners or skeptics.

      While an ISP prioritizing traffic is only trying to strong arm the packet provider into paying a toll fee.

    7. Re:Electron neutrality by dryeo · · Score: 1

      My ISP does the same thing, I get x amount of bits (250GBs) and then they charge like hell for any overages. Up to a point I can pay for more bandwidth but there is only so much that the infrastructure can supply.
      If the electric company wants to do similar, and they've put in meters that are capable and are considering tiered plans as well as time of day differences, why not? There's only so many dams and importing electricity gets expensive.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    8. Re:Electron neutrality by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Rhetorically clever, but wrong. People are concerned because of the effect the bitcoin mining is having on the overall network. If they were using the electricity to power a super-collider, it would have the same problem (assuming it's comparable, I don't know). The correct analog for ISPs would be if cable modem users ( who share bandwidth) were suddenly having people using 150% of their alloted bandwidth 100% of the time. It breaks the total resources available for all. And knowing if the uptick is permanentish (new factory) or transient (bitcoin mining0 helps determine if the solution is to shut it down or build new infrastructure.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    9. Re:Electron neutrality by dryeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nothing wrong with throttling, as long as it is done in a non-discriminatory manner. Whether your using bandwidth to watch Netflix or Joe's cat video server should not matter, just have a line where if you go over, throttle. And be upfront about it.
      I pay for 250 GBs, it shouldn't (and doesn't here) matter what I use it for.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    10. Re:Electron neutrality by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      It's just a gross and ugly celebration of mass consumption, of wallowing like a pig at a trough, struggling to consumer more and more, even claiming the creation of wealth by empty wasteful, really quite ugly excess consumption of resources and the generation of pollution, seeming to go for the cheery on top by facilitating the laundering of the proceeds of crime. In affect creating a public party of loathsomely excessive consumption, let's all play to our demise, the creation of more consumption to produce fewer illusionary coins, a fitting end for mud monkeys with delusions of grandeur.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    11. Re:Electron neutrality by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      How is this different than using electricity to play computer games or watch baseball on TV ?

    12. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      A couple of people have made the point that although the headline talks about charging miners more, what they really want to do is to charge higher volume users more. While it has the same effect, it's entirely different than, say, charging double for electricity to run a second air conditioner.

    13. Re:Electron neutrality by houghi · · Score: 1

      1 computer and/or 1 tv. Not 1.000 computers en/or 1.000 tvs.
      And even then it will not be 24/7.

      This is not about somebody running a PC fulltime. This is about people who has servers running and a lot of them.

      Car example. If you transport a jerrycan of extra fuel: not an issue. If you desire to drive around 1.000 jerrycans of fuel all the time: it is an issue.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    14. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      What you describe is parallel with network neutrality, because it's based on usage only. What the implication of the article was is that somehow the utility would target miners only with higher prices.

    15. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Agreed -- going after volume is technically different than going after coin miners, even if running the miners out of town is the intended effect.

    16. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      Both travel over wires. Both rely on a substantially centralized infrastructure (Baran's dream of a true peer-to-peer network aside). Both are fundamentally electricity. Both are subjects of a discussion of differential pricing and availability based on what the resource is used for. The analogy holds up pretty well.

    17. Re:Electron neutrality by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      1 computer and/or 1 tv. Not 1.000 computers en/or 1.000 tvs.

      But we have thousands of people running 1 computer or 1 TV, and only a few people running a bitcoin mine.

      As far as wasting resources, it's all the same.

    18. Re:Electron neutrality by Zaelath · · Score: 1

      Both are houses, both have rooms, both tend to be designed with women in mind, both have furniture inside. I guess doll houses and houses are the same thing too.

    19. Re:Electron neutrality by mlw4428 · · Score: 1

      Power grids are stressed, ISPs aren't exactly stressing at capacity and where they are stressing at capacity it's because their capacity was setup back in the 90s or early 2000s and they've put zero funding into correcting that.

    20. Re:Electron neutrality by user+no.+590291 · · Score: 1

      You can use that "logic" against any analogy; the original analogy is still salient and the deflection to house vs. doll-house is nice rhetoric but is a non sequitur.

  7. "Mi-ners" by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Is that something like the "la-ser"? Will it help me get my "one million dollars"?

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  8. Not Convinced. by Hylandr · · Score: 1

    I am not convinced that bitcoin mining is consuming as much as they claim.

    it just doesn't add up.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  9. Re:Chewed up to spit out by b0s0z0ku · · Score: 1

    Not really -- the Chinese "miners" in question seem more ignorant than evil.

  10. Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember getting into an argument here about four years ago about this problem with Bitcoin- that "mining" coins is based on everyone racing to use as much electricity as possible, and the number of kilowatt-hours burned per generated coin increases with time, as part of the design. "ATMs use electricity too" was the consensus opinion.
    Now we have a "currency" that gets "mined" using more electricity than Ireland uses. The wattage devoted to this crap has increased sevenfold during the past 12 months. People only use it as an investment, making it useless as a currency. "Everyone accepts it as payment" doesn't mean anything when everyone who has it is too scared to spend it.

    1. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      17th century tulip bubble - 1 month

      21st century bitcoin bubble - 9 years and counting

    2. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ooookay this has GOT to be some class 10 grade A level of delusion so lay it on us....how EXACTLY is a system that is designed to require ever increasing mathematical difficulty (thus requiring more power) to get output is "designed to decrease overtime" because I'm betting those are some flaming logic hoops that Evel Knievel would be impressed by.

      Because unless your answer is "it will eventually require more power than the sun can output to generate a coin" I call bullshit, hell even if you can somehow make BC take more power than the sun to generate a coin all that would do is cause the miners to move to LC or ETH so it means diddly damned shit anyway, but I want to hear how BC has magical power reducing powers because this should be some industrial strength crazy talk!

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    3. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The value of a bitcoin that one has invested in is highly dependent upon influencing others to believe that bitcoin is viable and not in a bubble. Once the public loses faith in it, the value drops. Once organized crime loses faith in it, the value plummets and the game is over. So you'll never see anyone with investments in bitcoin express any form of doubt at any time.

    4. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by xQx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, I completely agree with your questioning of GP. I've no idea how anybody comes to the conclusion that "Bitcoin energy consumption is designed to decrease over time". Bitcoin is designed to lower the reward (measured in terms of BTC) over time; but that's got nothing to do with the energy consumption required to mine a block.

      But, it's important to know that Bitcoin doesn't need anywhere near the current electricity demands of the global mining network to it to function.

      The Proof of Work (PoW) function in Bitcoin is like a lottery - the algorithm increases or decreases complexity based on the amount of CPU cycles entered in the lottery at any given time. So, whenever someone next door to you plugs in an Antminer and starts mining Bitcoin, at this stage they are doing absolutely nothing to help Bitcoin be Bitcoin, they're just using power to enter into the Bitcoin lottery - and claim their share of the prize whenever anyone in their 'mining pool' wins the lottery.

      Here's the critical point that most people either don't know, or don't want to know: If 99 out of 100 people who currently mine bitcoin turned off their miners tomorrow, Bitcoin would work PERFECTLY without them. It would use 1/100th of the current global power requirement and do EXACTLY THE SAME JOB.

      If cities have a problem with people using electricity to mine Bitcoin, that's a problem with the pricing of electricity, not a problem caused by Bitcoin.

    5. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by hairyfeet · · Score: 2

      Oh I never said BC as a currency neded the miners, I'm saying the entire concept of "BC mining will take less energy over time" is some Jurassic Park sized piles of shit.

      Hell even if he could come up with some batshit Ponzi scheme from hell that would explain how BC mining will magically suck less juice over time as we have seen by the damned near 5 year GPU drought the miners just move to LC or WTH or (insert new cryptocurrency here) so even if BC mining becomes unprofitable it ain't gonna do dick.

      As someone who is having to go team green after staying away from nvidia products since Bumpgate I've been keping up with the mining hoping it would turn into a big fail and we'd get cheap GPUs again but with $200 AMD GPUs now going for $650+? Yeah miners are still buying GPUs by the truckload and they wouldn't be doing that if mining wasn't still VERY profitable despite the power suckage

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      It's not designed to have ever increasing difficulty. It's designed for the difficulty to match miner capacity. If the miner capacity decreases, the difficulty decreases as well.

      Also, the reward for mining is halved every 4 years.

    7. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      One can reasonably argue that the tulip bubble already started in the early 1920s. Back then it was mostly limited to the tulip Semper Augustus, though. In 1923 those were already trading at over 1000 florins per bulb, equivalent to about a 5 years salary for a skilled worker. The big crash happened in February 1937. That's 10 years of tulip bubble.

    8. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      Should have been: 14 years of tulip bubble.

    9. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by ET3D · · Score: 1

      I'd say that even if 99999 out of 100000 people dropped out, Bitcoin would still work perfectly. Well, actually, that's not really right, because mining is very centralised, so what I really mean is, using 0.001% of computing power would still be enough. That excess 99.999% could be represented by a very small number of people with mining farms.

      The problem with mining is that it's designed to become less efficient the more computing power is put into the system. That's a terrible design which leads to what we're seeing in terms of power use.

    10. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by ET3D · · Score: 1

      Not just to launder dirty money. A monetary system that doesn't go through the banking system is useful to criminals by itself.

    11. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      The problem with mining is that it's designed to become less efficient the more computing power is put into the system. That's a terrible design

      How else would you do it ? The design is such that the number of new coins generated per day is limited, even if more computing power is added. The only way to achieve that is by requiring more computations for the same coins.

    12. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      If 99 out of 100 people who currently mine bitcoin turned off their miners tomorrow, Bitcoin would work PERFECTLY without them. It would use 1/100th of the current global power requirement and do EXACTLY THE SAME JOB.

      Except that the security of the network would only be 1/100th of what it was before, and therefore much easier to attack.

    13. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      If that many minerss dropped out, bitcoin would become unuseable instantly and permanently. Mining difficulty adjusts very slowly; so after that many miners dropping out, mining would take two years per block for a while.

      With about 2000 transactions per block, BTC could handle only 1000 transactions per year, with the usual 5 confirmations, it would take 10 years for a transaction to be confirmed..

      Also, if the value doesn't drop instantly, 51%-attacks become easy. Just like it happened with Bitcoin Gold recently.

      The power issue could be solved. There are alternatives to proof-of-work. I don't think BTC will move to them within reasonable time (just see how they handled the block size controversies, Segwit, etc). But other cryptocurrencies will, and could then make BTC irrelevant.

    14. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      I case you want to diversify from your cryptocurrencies investments:

      Unfortunately, "Semper Augustus" is no longer available

      The "Lilyflowering Marilyn" is a currently available, somewhat similar looking tulip. However, while it has the same colors, and a pattern somewhat resembling that of "Semper Augustus", the pattern on "Semper Augustus" was finer.

      If you already got rich with cryptocurrencies, and have a bit of money to spend: The characteristic patterns on "Semper Augustus" we a side effect of a virus infection. There already way some research in which virus exactly; I guess most of the work is done, and with a bit of extra effort (and money), one could recreate "Semper Augustus" or a lookalike.

    15. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      There also is "Grand Perfection. The pattern resembles "Semper Augustus" mmore closely than that on "Lilyflowering Marilyn", however, it is red at the bottom, and mostly white at the top, while on "Semper Augustus", the colors were more evenly distributed.

      Anyway, both can be bought at a few cents per bulb in bulk these days.

    16. Re:Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by spth · · Score: 1

      Well-working cryptocurrencies seem like a good alternative, to Paypal and international wire transfers.

      If bitcoin transaction fees were still as low as they used to be, businesses would offer it as an alternative to Paypal, etc.

      If one of the other cryptocurrencies that have lower transaction fees would be as widely used as bitcoin, businesses would offer it as an alternative to Paypal.

      So, there are legitimate uses, and it remains to be seen if cryptocurrencies will be used that way. But the reasons this is not currently happening are not a problem in the concept of cryptocurrencies. There was a time when many organization started accepting payments or donations in BTC; they stopped due to the high fees. I guess they are now waiting for one cryptocurrency to become dominant (and still have fast transactions at low fees), and will then accept payments in whatever cryptocurrency that would be

    17. Re: Gigawatt Ponzi scheme by reanjr · · Score: 1

      AC gets it!

  11. Re: Just say no by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

    If you use the peak load 24/7, as you said, then you should get 1/10 of that at the rate everybody else pays for the same service. The other 9/10, you should pay significantly more.

  12. Re:Just say no by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 2

    They can also add terms like “residential load profile” which means they only provision 10% of capacity. But, that is really peanuts— limiting a 10,000 square foot warehouse to 150kVA rather than the 3MVA they would like is much more effective.

  13. Re:Or grow-ops ? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Last time I looked, it was dark at night.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  14. Re: Or grow-ops ? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Secured glass ceiling greenhouses.

  15. Re: FUCKING BITCOIN by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Hopefully the 'bubble effect' can be contained to this particular boil so that when it pops the pus only gets on the playas messing around with it.

  16. Missing the Point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A bit hypocritical to want to charge Bitcoin miners for how they use electricity...

    You are missing the point. Nobody really cares what they use it for, what they care about is that there is suddenly a huge and unsustainable demand for electricity in a region which lacks the infrastructure to deliver it without massive price increases for everyone. The network equivalent would be someone in your neighbourhood running a small server farm which completely sucks up all the local bandwidth so that your network connection gets slowed down and the cost to the ISP to upgrade it would mean that you would have to pay much more for your connection.

    ISPs solve this problem by having tiered data plans: you pay more if you want to use more and if you want more than the maximum amount then you will need to negotiate with the ISP for the price. This way those using insane amounts of data will pay for it. The same should happen here for electricity. The only reason bitcoin is the issue is because it can sponge off the network more easily than say an aluminium smelter which would need special connections to be provided.

    1. Re:Missing the Point by Pentium100 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I do not know how this works in the USA, but this is how it works where I live.

      Wired internet - the ISP sets a limit on the amount of bits you can transfer per second. You can saturate the connection all day, and most ISPs will not do anything about it - only the cheaper ones will, but then again, if you are running servers etc you probably want the more expensive ISP because it is way more reliable than the cheap one.

      Electricity - you get limited power, say, 5kW for a residential house. You can ask for more and, if the wires to your house are big enough you will most likely get it. You may get denied if the grid does not have enough capacity in your area.

      So, IMO, if the area in TFA does not have enough capacity, then they probably should not have approved 10MW or whatever for the mining farm. Ask for 10MW, do not get it because the grid does not have enough capacity. Not whine that they are using the electricity for mining. If the company was a smelter instead of bitcoin miner, would it make a difference for the power?

    2. Re:Missing the Point by del_diablo · · Score: 1

      If you where a smeltery, and you where actually doing what you where doing on a large scale?
      Historically, you find a place to build a hydro plant, build the smelting plant next door, add a convenient travel route from a nearby living area, or even build a village.
      You then use the competitive price of electricity to leverage reduced cost , and then abuse the logistical advantages of running a electrical powered smelting plant from a hydro plant. Essentially bottled waterfall power.
      And if you wanted to go further, you need to think about what is happening: You are using a versatile resource to be competitive in enriching a resource, enchanting it, for increased surplus and competitive edge. And increased production cap, which is important. To take your enterprise to the next step, you would also need a enterprise that would transform the en richened material into something useful in the same area, to leverage the surplus of the already existing infrastructure, and further strengthen the possibility of a inland artificial village having enough of a community to make it something more than a place for people to work.

    3. Re:Missing the Point by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Electricity - you get limited power, say, 5kW for a residential house.

      It is far more than that! A typical electric kettle is about 2.2kW (10A @ 220V). Add to that an electric oven, microwave, water heater, space heater, computer(s), toaster etc. not to mention lighting and your peak usage is probably more like 10-20kW which means your actual limit is probably significantly higher. That's for a house a commercial property likely gets a significantly beefier connection.

      The problem is because domestic and typical commercial uses only use their peak capacity for short periods of time so that if their peak is X their average over a day may only be 10% of X. For bitcoin their average is probably more like 90% of X. So, if the bitcoin miners applied for a standard grid connection in a commercial area it is not unreasonable for the power company to expect that they had a typical usage profile and so get into trouble.

      The same thing happened with ISPs. Initially, they thought that everyone would just use a small fraction of their available bandwidth and then as new services, like Netflix came out and that fraction went up significantly for those users, they had to find a way to get the money to fund large bandwidth upgrades. They did this by putting on data volume caps so that the largest users ended up paying more to fund the extra bandwidth that they needed. Yes, some of the slimier companies reneged on promises of unlimited bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee but I'm not aware of any power company ever promising unlimited electricity for a fixed monthly fee.

    4. Re:Missing the Point by Pentium100 · · Score: 1

      In my country 5kW is kinda typical for single phase (the breaker tolerates short overloads). I have three phase 10kW line currently, though in practice it is a bit higher (20A breaker for 230V three phase). I am now in proces of upgrading to 20kW which would mean that the breaker is replaced with a 40A one.

      As for ISPs - in my country there are quite a few wired ISPs to choose from, so the competition is fierce and because of that we get low prices and no data caps. Situation with mobile internet is a bit different, but I do not remember a wired ISP limiting the amount of data you can transfer in a month (beyond the mbps you pay for) for a long time

      Also, my ISP (one of the big ones) sometimes upgrades the connection speed for no extra cost for me. When I first had fiber to my house (about 7 years ago), my connection was 80mbps, then it got upgraded to 300mbps and the price reduced, then it got upgraded to 600mbps with the same price, now it is 1gbps down 600mbps up and the price is still the same - 23EUR/month.

      Yes, some of the slimier companies reneged on promises of unlimited bandwidth for a fixed monthly fee but I'm not aware of any power company ever promising unlimited electricity for a fixed monthly fee.

      It seems that in my country the power company is very happy that I use a lot of electricity and pay my bills on time. Otherwise I would not get approved for increased line capacity.

  17. Re:Or grow-ops ? by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Orders of magnitude different in power-draw...

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  18. Re: Do something useful with that extra. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Informative

    The electrical costs of most manufacturing is less than the labor cost,

    That depends on what you are manufacturing. If you are making iPhones, the labor will cost more. If you are making aluminum ingots, the electricity will cost more. So Apple manufactures in Shenzhen, China, while Alcoa manufactures in Wenatchee, Washington.

  19. Re:Some somewhat obvious solutions by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    There's a snag in that this is a highly conservative area. The thought that they might have to have regulations put in place probably causes a lot of bed wetting.

  20. Re: I'll say it again... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    You have to connect your offline wallet somewhere to 'spend' the currency in it. If the infrastructure is fried, the exchange won't be running.

  21. Generate your own damn electricity. by jtgd · · Score: 1

    Go out in the desert in the southwest, buy cheap land, build a solar or wind farm, no transmission wires, bitcoin mining on site, less than wholesale priced electricity. Seems obvious.

    --
    J
    1. Re:Generate your own damn electricity. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      eh, they're paying money, the power companies are badly managed if they can't deal with high demand customer that's willing to pay.

    2. Re:Generate your own damn electricity. by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Requires a lot of capital investment.
      Not very smart if you are investing in something that may go poof any day.

    3. Re:Generate your own damn electricity. by jtgd · · Score: 1

      You think should shy away from capital investment after they've built these massive server farms? Hehehe.

      --
      J
    4. Re:Generate your own damn electricity. by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      nonsense, if the buildings are there they are paying taxes

      miners can be made to switch to on-site power generation at peak times for instance, this is done already in manufacturing areas.

      I worked in power management, this is just case of poor management and ignorance of people like you.

      again, problem is bad management who can't take advantage of opportunity for money

  22. Re: I'll say it again... by Kaenneth · · Score: 1

    Nor will any other form of electronic payment; but BTC is distributed; 90% of the servers could burn, and it'll still run.

  23. Re: Tax it. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Thanks for your input, George III.

  24. Re: BurstCoint and cryptocurrency energy consumpti by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Chia coin?

    I'm holding out for PetRock coin. Maybe Ty can get into this and we can all get rich with Beanie Coin!

  25. Re:Or grow-ops ? by dryeo · · Score: 1

    It's never totally legal, as in non-regulated. Here the proposals include a limit of 4 plants that have to be non-visible to the public and originally had a height limit as well.
    Depending on how the taxes go, it may still be profitable to sell on the black market. It'll take a while for industry to ramp up as well so at first they'll probably be a shortage.

    There's still a black market in tobacco and alcohol here as well, not to mention certain drug store drugs

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  26. Re: I'll say it again... by Crosshair84 · · Score: 1

    If it doesn't run where you need it, when you need it, it might as well be 100% destroyed.

    If a person is serious about being prepared for a disaster of any kind, they will have a reasonable supply of cash and physical gold/silver on-hand.

  27. Re: Just say no by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    It also isn't one weird dude with a box truck full of strange motherboards that only have display adaptors.

    Real businesses that employ people, pay taxes, etc.

    You dog turd (is this sort of closing part of your peoples' culture? I don't mean to be insensitive)

  28. Re:Some somewhat obvious solutions by spth · · Score: 1

    Typically the problem is peak consumption.

    In many places (at least in Europe), electricity companies offer electricity at varying rate. This is typcially used by those needing a lot of electricity, such households using electric heating or factories. If you have an electric boiler for hot water (common in Europe in rural areas since natural gas is available on-site mostly only in cities or near gas fields), you can heat the water during a few hours the electricity company supplies you at the low rates (the contract usually specifies a minimum amount of hours per day that the electricity company has to supply you at the low rate) and then use it during the day.

    If bitcoin miners would get electricity contracts with variable rates, both side could profit: The miners could cut costs by mining only during off-peak hours (maybe 20 hour per day). The electricity company would profit by demand being more even. At noon, the electricity would got to household for cooking and air conditioning, at other times it would got to the miners.

    In the US, this model works well for other energy-intensive industries, such as aluminium smelting. Why not do the same for bitcoin mining?

  29. Re: Just say no by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Which is ironically the exact opposite way to how commercial pricing works. Most large companies (reads employers) pay something close to wholesale while also being charged for reactance. The problem here is the local bitcoin mining rig doesn't actually support any jobs or the local economy so the incentive structure pays down.

    So what are you going to do? Fold? Kick all local industry in the balls? Fight a lawsuit for preferential treatment?

  30. Re: I'll say it again... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or just guns and ammo

  31. Re:I'll say it again... by rally2xs · · Score: 1

    That particular solar flare will make most everyone dead. No electricity equals no more mechanization, farming with animals again, mass starvation when tractors don't make food and trucks don't deliver it, etc. Survivors will be the cannibals.

  32. they charge money, no problem by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    they're paying for their electricity, what's the problem?

    1. Re:they charge money, no problem by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      negative externalities.

    2. Re:they charge money, no problem by vandamme · · Score: 1

      Well, they're not using decent farming land to raise tulip bulbs for speculation.
      But tulips are useful. Bitcoin, not so much.

    3. Re:they charge money, no problem by Agripa · · Score: 1

      they're paying for their electricity, what's the problem?

      The problem is that the power company does not have a rate structure in place which can fund the capitol expansion necessary for unplanned demand. Since it is a government regulated utility, this is not surprising and to be expected.

    4. Re:they charge money, no problem by grahamsz · · Score: 1

      It's hardly a municipal power issue. If you went to Xcel and asked for a GW of power delivered to your building then they'd want to make damn sure you were going to be a long term customer. Building out that kind of infrastructure is typically done on a decades-long process of capital investment and no entity (public or private) is going to front that cost for something that could vanish tomorrow

      There's something of a game of chicken going on between Evraz Steel and Xcel in Colorado where Evraz "depends" on low rates and Xcel "needs" their single largest customer.

      https://www.denverpost.com/201...

  33. Re: I'll say it again... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    Bitcoin at this point could fail on a whim, and it would be a few news articles for a week or two before it was forgotten. Not so with fiat currency as it currently exists.

    That's a big difference, and it's part of the definition of what a 'currency' actually is that makes it so.

    But as to your science fiction fantasies, the movie has been made, everybody enjoyed it, but it's science fiction.

  34. Re: Just say no by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    non-Bitcoin industry

    There's no reason to be redundant.

  35. Re:BurstCoint and cryptocurrency energy consumptio by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

    There's also proof-of-stake coins like Reddcoin.

    Disclaimer: I own between zero and nine quintazillion Reddcoins.

    --
    #DeleteFacebook
  36. Re: Or grow-ops ? by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    not enough sunlight in washington ive heard. while here in las vegas they grow indoors because the heat will kill the plants, and quality of course.

  37. Re: Just say no by istartedi · · Score: 1

    That's exactly how it works with PG&E in California. I think it's 3 tiers of usage, with Summer having a different tier system because air conditioners are the biggest strain. I think I heard that at one point, indoor pot grows were estimated to be 3% of the draw from their grid. Bitcoin up there in Washington is making indoor pot grows look... welll... no pun intended but... greener.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  38. Re:YOU are missing the point: PAID FOR is PAID FOR by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Unless they paid for the electricity in advance then it is not "paid for" and therefore they can increase the price for the largest consumers if they want to.

  39. Bitcoins are pure greed by brucekeller · · Score: 1

    Simple as that. Sure you can make money, but we are wasting so much electricity on essentially nothing, a fiat currency with no true backing except for all the graphics cards and electricity wasted producing it. Once the truly rich are ready to suck out all the wealth at least it should die down and maybe our electricity and processing power can be used for something productive.

  40. Re:I'll say it again... by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    Industry? Doesn't industry require some sort of output of goods, services, or materials? I don't think waste heat counts ...

  41. Re: Just say no by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

    The output of non-Bitcoin industries are goods and services which can be used by consumers or other industries. What goods or services are produced by Bitcoin mining?