oh mr stompix. .. im going to get to your derailment but i will colour the text grey so those that dont care for it can glaze over and not read it.


to other readers.. my initial posts were not about the numbers. i was using a simple demonstration of common sense context, about where the majority of miners are on the grid thus affected by regulations(which this topic is about)..
heck even in posts using numbers i specifically said the numbers were random numbers plucked out of my head rather than well researched numbers, because the context of the message were not about number specificity and instead about understanding a scenario concept.
.. sorry for stompixes derailment, but he has a major issue with being argumentative and then gets hurt when he gets corrected and doubles down on his knitpicks.. so sorry again about his silly weird cries about his believed approximate numbers are more factual compared to common sense conversations about concepts/sentiments, business plan options.

so stompix:
you do realise the points of me mentioning numbers without going into a wall of text of detailed scientific notated white paper right..
.. because the point of the comment is not about the numbers, but about the methodology and the sentiment of scenarios businesses choose to do in regards to power utility.

but hey if you want to derail to cause arguments with silly knitpicks about numbers.. lets do this

funny stuff that..

oh and look another website that you quote, where they love the word "approximately"
much like your other topics where you link sites which clearly use guesstimates, assumptions and approximations.
please try harder to understand words and plausibility that these number actually atleast sound right in context of common sense and if the subject matter/topic actually requires specific numbers (this topic does not), but if YOU are the one that wants to center your comment around numbers. then please dont go quoting sites that use the words "guesstimate, approximately, assumed).. as it will hit you hard more then the person you are trying to counter. (in your off topic cries)

funny part is when you started crying about number specificity.. you clearly missed my post where i clearly indicated
 (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)
to avoid the talentless knitpickers like yourself that like to derail topics because i didnt use researched numbers.. i clearly state that these numbers were random.. because the exact numbers are not important to the context of the message.

emphasis
.. its obvious that the point of the post is not about the numbers themselves but the context of the scenarios. .. but you still wanted to go down that rabbit hole just to cause an argument.. (facepalm)

now lets do some basic maths. using some more common sense..
based on the links provided by stompix who wants to be numeric specific... and see how well his favoured numbers play out..
lets start with the mining hashrate and number of miners stompix wanted to counter with..
1.6exa / 140terra = 11428 (meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
1.6exa / 110terra = 14545(meaning nope they are not using the 110thash asics)
1.6exa / 95terra = 16842(meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
so what asics are they using, lets use math again
1.6exa/19600asics = 81.6thash average per asic... yuck.. they are not even using efficient asics.

hmm..
i find it more plausible, common sense and business savvi that if they were any good at business they would be using atleast the 95thash asics and running 17k of them to get a 1.6exa.. rather than what they want to publish of running 19k asics of older crappier generation asics.

..
now lets take one more step down the stompix rabbit hole of number specificity in a topic thats not about number specificity
561btc with revenue of $37.7m... for Q1 of 2022
well maths says.. in Q1 they got 561coin at $67k each.......... hmmm
.....hmmm.... oh look the price was never $67k in Q1
(Q1 2022 btc amount using november 2021 prices of a single day..
 maybe they also have a time machine, mined in 2022 and went back in time and sold it all exactly on november 9th 2021(sarcasm obviously).. or.. they are fudging their numbers to look good)

my view of regulators is that they should be more concerned and emphasising the consumer protection side of things, and less concerned with the consumer suspicious behaviour side.

EG they want exchanges to monitor the customers. but the regulators dont really monitor the businesses to the same fine detail. and instead wait for customers to complain to regulators about bad exchanges.. . this doesnt seem a fair balance

this is because regulators are very willing and happy to arrest suspicious customers and send people that do petty crimes of $1k-$10k through the court system . yet when exchanges fleece/steal/scam/cause issues to thousands of users where millions of dollars are lost... .. they do flimsy investigations.. and demand small petty fines in comparison to exchanges yearly sales

EG if someone is on say minimum wage meaning $20k a year salary, but gets a large fine bigger than their early income.. then businesses that do bad things should be fined more then their yearly sales too... its only fair.

but with that rant said. legitimising businesses can help people learn which are the exchanges that would most likely still be operating in a few years and would look after customers funds better. compared to the wild west scenario scenario of 2010-2017* where any website stating to being an exchange could just run off with customers funds and no one could tell the difference.
(*think about all the exchanges that ever existed. but no longer operating in recent years)

custodial services usually dont send transactions out one by one where the user pays the whole fee of one transaction.

they usually batch it up as being like a 1in100out
which works out cheaper then a 1in 2out

EG

bc1qexchangecoldwallet (5000btc) -> bc1qcustomer1wallet (0.99999860btc)
                                                       bc1qexchangecoldwallet (4999btc)
(140 vbyte) (customer pays 140sat fee at 1sat per vbyte)
vs
bc1qexchangecoldwallet (5000btc) -> bc1qcustomer1wallet (0.99999968btc)
                                                       bc1qcustomer2wallet (0.99999968btc)
                                                       ....
                                                       bc1qcustomer99wallet (0.9999968btc)
                                                       bc1qexchangecoldwallet (4901btc)
(3179 vbyte)(customer pays 32sat fee each at 1 sat per vbyte)

i love the fact that you want to use small facility examples and ignore all the other mining farms that rely on the grid.. thus affected by rules created to control the national/state grids market supply to the industry..

seems you are trying to knitpick for the sake of causing an argument. rather than understand the bigger picture at the state grid/state government level (this topics ban is about)

yep.. these regulations are about telling power companies to stop supplying asic farms..
BIG EMPHASIS: WHERE THE MAJORITY ARE USING THE GRID

and instead you want to use examples of farms not even part of the grid.. and yes those examples you use are only small facilities that dont give much hashpower to the network thus not really a big hit to the network if they are running or not

the Greenidge has 17k asics..[1]
the network is currently running at 1.5million asics..(140terra hash*~1.5m asics=~212exa give or take 1% hashrate variance)
meaning greenidge is not even 1.2% of the network

a change of 212 exa down to 209.6(-2.4)exa is not even going to be a detail anyone notices at the network hashrate level..

also..
if america is 33% of the network (500,000 asics) then greenidge is 3.4% of america.
also...
[1]

so you want to ignore the other 91.6%+* of mining on the grid (my examples are about the majority) just to talk about some 3.4% of america of some ~8.4% of NY... just to cause an argument??

 and where by its not even part of the main topic about the government stopping utility companies from supplying the industry. because your example is about privately owned production..

so how about you stick to the topic of the 91.6%+ utility* that is part of the grid that is being affected most by the government ban

* atleast 11 out of 12 = atleast 91.6%

and who do you think they buy these plants or contracts from??

power companies wont even sell a gas/coal power plant privately unless they knew they dont need it anymore. they dont need it any more if they have enough excess and capacity via other means to reach their end of years sales requirements to make their financial reports look pretty..

excess capacity is a factor you keep forgetting

and that there is where the EG comes in. because power companies doing these contracts/ plant sells need to think of the implications of locking out X amount of excess for years.

if they dont have much excess while owning the fossil plants. they need to keep the share holders happy of seeing end-of-year sales reports of X cashflow.
meaning low excess means they have to keep their capacity and keep it running and rack up the prices. to meet targets.

however if they have huge new capacity that is not being used but able to reach their end of year sales targets. then they will happily sell off the redundant old plants or offer excess cheaper

there is more to it then that..
there is what i call the 'stirring the pot' problem

if funds are locked into a system with no desire/ability to exit those coins. then people just end up swapping within the system. this means no buying new coin(at corporate paypal level) no exiting with the coin(at customer level). and so its just the same coin stirring in the pot.. being held in custody but not blockchain moving. and instead just changing users account balance numbers. where users are upset by having to sell at a loss when the only option to exit paypal was $$

where as letting people exit holding btc and allowing new users to buy and exit. means new buyers are then requesting coins, which paypal doesnt have to give(less in custody). so paypal buys more to then give.
which at this precise moment is good because its cheap to buy them.

new coins get to stir in the custodial pot at a new lower average cost..

EG instead of stirring the pot of coins where they initially may have been bought at $60k by paypal corporate, and lots of users were at a 50% loss when selling yesterday within paypal(as their only way out previously). those users can exit holding their coin and be happier to be non custodial holders. and not forced to sell at a loss
whereby fresh customers can buy fresh coins. at lower prices. and paypal is then able to 'average down' its custody value of coins it has and keep customers happy

its not as simple as one source is X and another source is Y depending on how its created. its also how much spare capacity they have to offer out to new industry.

EG
if one region only has 30GW excess spare and has a regulatory cap-limit of say 12cent as the max they can sell at. they sure as hell are going to sell it at 12cent as they can only earn a max of $3.6m an hour if sold at top amount

where as if they had 230GW excess they can sell for 3cents and still get $6.9m (more then first example)while offering cheap electric
(or any number between, depending on greed of the company(upto $27.6m if at top cap limit price))

each state of the US. and each country have different plans for transitioning to renewables.

by assessing the strategy of transitioning to renewable. you can probably gauge if a state is going to be new industry friendly or not..

imagine that 4 regions are initially fossil based powered with say 100GW capacity and 70GW local demand each right now. (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)

1st region may assess that the renewable production requires a new plant capacity of 200GW for future proofing population growth,
where by as soon as the facility is built. they can just switch off the fossil fuel plant the same day. and be 100% renewable. with 130GW spare to offer as excess for new industry to buy up on day one, instead of 30GW excess

2nd region may build the same as 1. but instead of switching off the fossil fuel plants, they start offering renewable excess on the grid market to neighbouring regions along side fossil fuel excess. and slowly reduce the fossil fuel amount over years when they start offering certain utility companies in the area x% where by less demand is there for the fossil contracts.
(some states enjoy keeping coal miners employed so wont want to see a mass exodus of the coal/oil mining industry instantly)
whereby they can have 230GW excess to sell on the markets initially by keeping fossil plants running. meaning alot of potential profit aswell as keeping coal miners employed

3rd region, may want to keep initial build costs low. and so only build a 100GW renewable plant. whereby it keeps the capacity to 100GW by switching off fossil fuel to 0GW on first day of operation, (1:1 swap, no future plan) meaning 70GW demand with only 30GW spare, which they dont want to offer out as excess. but are now 0% carbon

4th region, same as 3 (100GW) whereby at the moment of operating it, they can reduce the fossil fuel to say 35GW fossil fuel(50% carbon/carbon free), meaning if needed.. upto 65GW fossil fuel excess plus 65GW renewable excess.
(changes capacity from 100GW to 200GW meaning excess of upto 130GW if needed
which they can offer out as excess contracts. and slowly bring the fossil fuel number down further if not needed. 
to only be 100GW (if they dont expand more plants over the generations)

each plan has different merits..
EG difference between 3 and 4 is that. 3 transitions to 0% carbon on first day, but it is not planning for the future nor is it netting any extra income to then re-invest for the future. where as 4 is not instantly 0% carbon but is on a budget and gaining extra income while then able to slowly build-out extra capacity over the generations to become both 0% carbon and also future capable, on a budget
.
i say this because with these different plans. requires then allowing or not allowing new industry to take on the excess.

gotta laugh at some replies..

paypal offer a way to exit a custodial wallet to a sole control address.. and certain replies then hint at a silly altnet that locks funds into a multisig 50% controlled by another party..

.. putting it into an altnet (like certain people shamelessly advertised) still requires the network fee to lock/peg those funds up. and also requires forming a relationship with another entity that you require authorisation from. so ...

jump out of the fire, fall into a pot of boiling water.. .. gotta laugh

its xerox.. im surprised they didnt copy the idea... excuse the pun
but then again. if you worked for durex(EU version of trojan).. they would have given you the rub too

alot of people have tried this. but here is the experiences of them.
1. in countries that deem bitcoin as a legal currency.
 by accepting fiat in exchange for another currency as a business, those 'agents' become MSB's(money service businesses). which require licences, regulated insurance(X reserves locked up) and inspection/auditing/ costs.
.. however there are some countries that have not determined bitcoin as being a 'currency' by law, by which that means that bitcoin is treated as simply an asset(product/service) and thus agents in those countries are thought of as just merchants.

so be aware of the legal frame work the businesses have to work within when setting up in certain countries

2. the costs of opening a business are not cheap, nor are employee's. so while wanting to fight the 'remittance fee' of places like western union. many of these start-ups end up realising the hard way that they have their own costs to cover, and so they start charging a fee.. in many cases they pretend they dont charge a fee, and instead just adjust the 'spread' of the market price to hide any suggestion of a fee while scalping a profit from the market spread. either way it ends up that the customers at both ends of a remitting see a noticeable difference between how much was sent and how much was received compared to forex exchange rates.

so keep in mind of costs associated with running a business. even if you can avoid the countries that require legal costs of regulation of MSB, you still have the employee salary, and the volatility swings which usually add on a few % of difference to the market 'spread' on both sides to cover both employee's(no one works for free)

3. what ends up happening, especially in countries that deem bitcoin as currency (MSB licence costs associated) is that instead of there being independent small businesses in each town of a country where each business has to pay a licence fee each. they all end up centralising into a national/international company where the company buys a licence and the workers in each town just act as employee's of the company.

4. for the countries that do require MSB licences. its not just the licence application fee. its the ongoing monitoring/supervision.
lets use numbers from america. page 2
money transmitters might be monitored for 140-500 hours a year at $107 per hour cost, which is ~ $15k-$54k dependant on volume transfered
other upfront costs are included aswell like staking(collateral locked) of certain amount of fiat/crypto reserves, where amounts locked are dependant on how much volume shall be done in a year.

people worry that america will do a full ban in all states..
my opinion is this

NY will temp ban mining so they can then offer a monopoly on licences..
TX will be open to mining.
FL & CA will be open to utility of btc

i say this because NY is the monopoly capital of capitalism. they don't like little people competing with the financial elite.

TX is the liberal state that likes to support open business competition. they love their farming and their mining so they will happily invite another (virtual) farming/mining industry

FL & CA are open minded but more about the service/tourist industry. so they would be more about offering services both real world retail store business utility and also technology services like software services

many asic manufacturers are no longer building asics and putting them into cardboard boxes and then into shipping containers, to deliver out where the workers at the mining farm warehouse have to take delivery, open the container, pull out all the boxes, unbox them, unwrap the bubblewrap and polystyrene and then plug them in one by one.. trying to not trip over the cabling

instead.. asic manufacturers build the asics and power units and have them racked up and cabled into the shipping container(alreadt fitted and cabled ready). where all the workers at the delivery destination have to do is connect a master circuit electric cable to the shipping container power circuit unit , and hey presto. its mining. right from within the shipping container.

this advantage saves a days worth of labour and also makes it easy to re-locate at a moments notice if needs be.

just unplug the shipping container and lift it back onto a low bed truck and off it goes.

its becoming easier to set up and relocate these days. so location is not a problem
(unlike businesses like amazon warehouses where it would take weeks to take boxes off shelves and put all the stock into trucks in one go.)

i think you mean.. what if the prohibition is not as short as the bitlicence (literally hours with pre planned deadline)

where they done a scheme where they banned exchanging in new york after X date.. but months prior told businesses to get prepared and apply for a licence which became active hours after the date.. thus it felt like (for those businesses that applied for licence) as if there was no ban, no delay of service.

i do not see this as being that short(hours) .. but i also do not see this as being as long (over decade) as the 'prohibition' of 1920-1933

i see this as a upto 2 year delay/halt.. with a looming 'threat' where mining is could be permanently banned will be made.. after the 2 year period is up..
but within the two year "delay/halt" they will introduce licences for mining companies that can prove the source of their power is renewable to be active by the end of the 2 year delay/halt period(or sooner).. giving the government upto 2 years to set up the licence application department and regulations departments to over see mining operations.
(it takes time to train new staff in new tech, so dont expect licences being offered in the next few months)

after all if it was just a temporary thing. where 'open/unlicenced uncontrolled mining was allowed after 2 years. mining farms wont care about wanting to legitimise themselves to comply with any temporary delay/halt

..
NY state(local government) used to entice companies in via tax breaks and grants.. this way instead of giving real money away or avoid taking money away from treasury.. they can invent a new 'product'(licence) that comes at a huge fee when they dont want the business as much. and offer discounts/free licences when they want the business.. that way they can control how much mining comes into NY using up the renewable excess capacity, further controlling how much mining happens in NY

(.. all this is my opinion based on what a savvi business man would do if he was a politician)


this is just about NY.. a state that doesnt even tickle the needle on the scales of how much hashpower is distributed world wide

NY is not a big deal. but. that said. if all U.S states followed suit and copied. then that could affect 30% of the network TEMPORARILY.
and just like china. and then russia.. well. temporary hashpower drop. and then recovery within 6 months..
yep we are at higher hashrate now even though mining was banned in china september (9 months ago)
and china was a bigger land mass, bigger population and far bigger mining hashrate source than silly little NY state

here is another perspective..

lets use the scenario of the 2014 bit licence and also the 1900's alcohol prohibition..

if something is previously open and has no laws. a government cant just offer licences/permits to it.. they first need to outlaw/ban/prohibit it. .. to then bring it into their purview (jurisdiction) to then set terms of use in their licence/permits which hey can later sell/offer.

i dont see this as a "permanent ban" scenario.. i see this as phase one of establishing a permit/licencing scheme

what you will see is that it creates a monopoly.

small hobby miners wanting to set up residentially using random power from random power generation plants(residential circuit of national grid) wont be able to. and most hobby miners wont want to move to locations of 100% renewable.
also the electric cost in NY is not the best unless you are on "industrial" rate contracts.
so this is pretty much ruling out any small farms mining in NY

however larger industrial mining farms if positioned right and using the right lobbying could get a licence.
..
this is said because NY done this before.. outlawed bitcoin exchanging and then offered a licence to allow exchanging a short time later.(research: bit licence)

in many countries if something is free to do with no laws, you cant just throw a licence requirement at it. you first have to prohibit it, to then bring it into your jurisdiction to then put terms of use on it where you will permit use of it.

government cannot control bitcoin (the technology) just like they cant tell a bottle of wine to stop being swallowed.

however governments can regulate PEOPLE. and laws apply to people. because people can be punished and people can read the law.
(bitcoin(and wine) has no brain or eyes. it cant read paper laws. it cant be punished. but people can)

governments can regulate businesses(run by people). and create laws obided by people.
people can try to evade the law. but at risk of punishment if found. and governments can find ways to find people (like how silk road creator was found even with things like tor, proxies)..

yes the laws on alcohol (1920's prohibition.. and under age drinking) has not been effective. and people still drunk it. ... though many people were also caught and punished

yes the laws on drugs ('war on drugs') has not been effective. and people still got high ... though many people were also caught and punished.

..
so although drugs are still available, and alcohol is still available even to underage people and even when it was prohibited in the last century... and bitcoin will still be available .. people using them are limited in their freedom and openness about their utility of it

..
many businesses are not lobbying against it. because these limitations become opportunities. if they can afford the fines or afford the licencing to become legitimate merchants of the limited use items. they can monopolise the market and not have much competition.

regulations are the opposite of the 'free market'.. but hey.. thats capitalism

(im against monopoly and capitalism, and where regulations are used to stifle growth/openness.. but i atleast understand it.)

solar is not really viable right now.
firstly in general the sun is only out for like 8 good hours a day (i said in general, non specific to any region or latitude or weather condition)
so if a solar panel can produce atleast 1kwh at peak sun, it would require atleast 9 panels to power one 3kw asic 24/7 along with batteries. 3kwh asic x24=72kwh

this is because you need to generate 3kw x 24 in only an 8 hour window (72kwh)
9(1kw panel)*8hours=72
(i said atleast a few times so dont knitpick exact numbers. im trying to keep demo example simple)

however, here is the rub. comparing to just buying electric 'on demand' a solar panel has to be bought up-front, where the cost is then spread out usually over 10 years to become effectively break even/at cost of on demand electric costs... but.. bitcoin hashrate doesnt stay the same for 10 years to only need that same 9 panels to power the same asic for 10 years. to get the same mining reward income to pay off the costs.
hashrate climbs meaning you need to double your asics not every 10 years, (break even period) but every ~6-18 months. meaning its never break even.

...
i say this because the pilot project is not aimed at just dropping a mining microfarm shipping crate next to every 'flare' pipe well and just mining at every well, without doing the research/cost analysis..
its actually to see how much it costs to add a turbine to the pipe. how much that turbine can generate (each pipe emits different levels of gas and different quality of gas, which effects how much it can generate).
and then how much power generation can power how many asics which determines how much coin can be mined, and if that coin can profit enough short term to cover the long term cost of the whole project.
EG if they never breaks even. they wont roll it out to all the other THOUSANDS of wells in the region

..
with that said. im sure the oil company that is flaring gas, can do research on the amount of co2 the flare is emitting and account that as a 'carbon credit' value/loss. and if they can effectively show how they convert that pipe into a utility for some function where it 'captures' instead of emits carbon. they can then get some environmental/government grant to pay for the conversion costs (again needs research and demonstration of process) as well as feasibility and accounting reports, before adopting large scale over thousands of flare pipes

tv show: "the time travellers wife" (2022) season 1 episode 4 - 35:16

explanation. filmed in 2021-22. about a guy that travels through time. the scene of this particular episode is meant to be based in 2008, where a friend of the time traveller is asking for "future stock tips"


and...... (second line)

firstly you failed to define your "anyone".
you did not say "everyone". nor did you use a scenario of it having to be me specifically. so "anyone" can be anyone.

in my experience. those "anyones" that bought from me were not new investors outside of the system they were people already in the bitcoin community that found me and during conversations about bitcoin they wanted to buy more.. so they were not new investors.

the reasons why the scenario happened was that they were under the delusions of the hype propaganda of "get rich quick" "double your money in x months". which i tried to correct them about, and tried to explain that its not a get rich quick scheme, and instead a slow progressive deflationary hedge against inflation. i felt sorry for them, thinking that they were not prepared for the long haul. and so i offered them an refund if they changed their mind in the short term. knowing they were dreaming of getting returns only X months.
(so i atleast secured their dream of atleast breaking even in that said short term)

that was my decision. and "bitcoin" is not some sentient AI that makes those decisions. just like a share certificate is not a sentient AI that decides its terms and conditions of who gets to trade shares



the system did not issue bitcoin. the system stores/logs bitcoins issued by PEOPLE that mine it.
if there are no people mining bitcoin there are no bitcoins.

bitcoin is not some 'perpetual motion machine' that self runs, it relies on peoples time and work effort.. and people value their time, work effort and costs... and thats what they decide to sell their units of measure they acquire from their time.effort and costs.

bitcoin does not mine itself. bitcoin does not sell coins or issue coins itself. its people

people write code to collate transactions into a block. people design and create miners to then hash the collated blocks. and people then decide who to distribute the coin rewards of those blocks.

the system of bitcoin is not some intelligent AI that self determines who deserves what. bitcoin system does not determine its own price nor does it decide who to sell to.. PEOPLE DO

once you learn what bitcoin is and how it works. then and only then will it make sense to you. and that is where your assertions fail..
your failure is thinking the bitcoin system is some sentient AI

..
as for your silly mantra about banks notes and loans and borrowers. i distinctly remember educating you on your previous account name, that you having a bank note does not gain you more value from borrowers. you get no interest increase in value from holding a bank note. again infact and for emphasis the longer you hold a bank note the less value it has, because all that 'money creation' via 'loans' dilutes the value of circulation..

yep loans cause less value.
why?
simple.
loans are not created due to 'borrowing'.
a bank does not take funds out of one account to give to someone else.
a bank literally creates new money when a loan agreement is created. and gives new money to the person requesting it. with terms that the person has to give the amount back to the BANK plus x%.

people taking loans are not repaying bank customers holding bank notes.
you think that people taking loans do pay those holding bank notes.. again thats another flaw of your misunderstanding of how financial systems work

please. dont waste another year creating another account just to start again with your delusions on repeat. instead break the cycle and spend the time learning how actual economics works.

so go research. and then come back in a few months. with a fresh mindset after doing some research. with a new prospective of economics. and then we can have a more rational debate based on facts, not your delusions.

yep. please go do some research because you have wasted a year on 4 accounts saying the same thing based on your unresearched mis-understanding of economics. and as soon as you get debunked. you simply created another account and started again pretending the debate never happened and pretending you never got corrected.. break the cycle, learn something.