$100k...pfft

looks like old s9's too me
probably at the end of their life cycle anyway

seeing the video and guessing a 15x15 grid(225). upto 20x20(400)
(couldnt be bothered to waste time actually counting accurately)

thats like combined 300kwh for 3.2phash upto
                             540kwh for 5.7phash

they would have only got $22k-$40k if they sold them second hand anyway so no major loss. definitely not $100k loss


yet for 30-50 s19pro's they can now do the same hashrate for 98kwh-160kwh
pretty much save 3x their electric costs by calling the confiscated old crappy s9's dead anyway

hashpower and reward for mining has ZERO connection with number of transactions in a block
miners that empty mine or full block mine get the same length hash and pass that has to asics
transaction count per block is MEANINGLESS to mining cost and reward.
they all get the same hash length and same 6.25btc reward no matter what
the 'fee total' is not about transaction count either. its about selection and bidding and arbitrary min fee rules set in software

now thats explained
media are not just saying "bitcoin uses country X amount of energy" but also propagandising that "each transaction costs X houses daily energy bill"

this narrative is done by certain groups that want to portray bitcoin as useless and expensive to transactions to sway people into using altnets for their transactions instead.

there is no reprogramming of cell
the ribosome does not change

if you cant understand science. look in your kitchen
if a recipe says get a cup of water. the cup does not change.
if a recipe says put ingredients together. the bowl does not change
if a recipe says put it in the oven. the oven does not change

a oven does not change into a meat grinder. its still an oven
a oven does not change into a meat patty mold. its still an oven

the recipe only works if it uses what already exists.
the recipe is created to function using the bodies natural machinery

making a cake does not mean you have to change any kitchen appliance into a new device

.. now i really hope you atleast know how yo make some basic food in your kitchen to understand reality of how things work

every human has a ribosome. there is no need to change it or create a ribosome to then produce the protein
the mRNA does not have the lengthy complex code to change or make a new ribosome

majority of chinese mining FARMS have been 'green' since 2014(set up in hydro areas from the start)
majority of chinese and other countries residential hobby home miners have been fossil

the fun facts is most altcoins of small hashpower are home hobby miners wasting fossil

moderate to majority of western FARMS are fossil

asic farms have not ever tried to set up in solar area's due to.. obviously night.
asic farms have not ever tried to set up in windfarm area's. due to.. obviously still-air
asics farms have preferred hydro due to.. obviously. constant water-flow

the sudden press news about Green mining is not some new idea
its about 50% propaganda anti china/hate messaging
50% blame the home hobby miners. and attempt to remove home hobby for more industrial elite groups via raising investment to set up industrial farms in the west in regions of renewable hydro

(sarcasm)dont say that the LN utopian fluff PR guys have been beating me left and right trying to say that everything in LN is the same as bitcoin and spreading vile that im talking nonsense about how LN uses different units of measure that bitcoin cannot accept..
if you continue revealing that LN is different to bitcoin with its own separate units of measure, they will abandon you as their worship leader and call you a LN heretic

so maybe whisper it next time or they will hate you too
(/sarcasm)

maybe their anger and claims of misinformation is that i claim its 12 decimals when they want to be anal and say its 11 (pico minus 1). yet they miss the point entirely that its more then 8, thus not bitcoin compatible

anyway.. after Gmax's shameless plug of another network (standard poke to avoid solving bitcoin issues)
lets draw the topic back to bitcoin issues.

the main one seems to be what is being promoted as a technical problem.. getting the byzantine generals to agree on a bitcoin evolution
though digging deeper. its more political than technical.

first coercing the main merchants(generals) to change or their transactions will be more expensive.. so merchants follow pools and ripple effects onto users(cadet) that want to use merchants, so follow too.

next coercing pools to change unless have their blocks rejected by merchants. again ripple effects pools follow and users follow.

but before the political game even begins. trying to convince the core devs to implement some change. is the bigger political game. because if they decline to release a code change in their implementation. it aint going to happen. any 'forked github' of bitcoin software by default is always treated with opposition. even if it has no intention of forking the chain

it doesnt edit YOUR genes

you really are pulling at straws trying to find any small twiglet of way to think of it as gene therapy
but its not. injecting the vaccine does not do any editing to your genes. so no gene therapy to you

it lacks the enzymes that pass through the nucleus barrier.
it lacks the tRNA and the other rna parts that would slice and dice your dna
the mRNA is just a messenger instruction to make a protein.. in the ribosome

there is no transcription/replication instructions..
there is no gene splicing instructions
there is no gene combining instruction

your body produces the immunity.. always has. no vaccine is about providing immunity.
its about triggering the bodies immunity in a safer way than a virus would

and again to really try geting you to open your closed mind

its not GENE editing. so not gene therapy
at most its protein generating therapy

gene therapy involves passing a cells nucleus membrane and changing the DNa inside

mRNA doesnt go into the nucleus. it goes into the ribosome
mRNa doesnt change the gene in the nucleus

mRNA vaccine instruction is to get the ribosome to do some protein creating

if anything its protein generative therapy..
not gene therapy

LEARN THE DIFFERENCE


mRNA vaccine makes proteins not more rna/gna genes..

heck if you cant even get it right where the proteins are made(ribosome not nucleus) then maybe you need to go back to highschool..


if you like analogies
imagine your sisters home.. and there is a yard with a cow in it
gene therapy is invading your sisters home going to her bedroom and imbreeding to produce an imbred offspring that based on you and your sisters genes (yes i feel you can atleast understand this scenario)

mrna vaccine goes to the yard and cuts up the cow to make protein burgers

99.99% of cry baby "ouchy the needle hurt" are not reported. this dilutes the more accurate hospitalisation severe reports..

so it is not less than 1% of severe cases are reported.
sever cases are pretty accurate.
its just diluting the overall stats by including the minor stuff as a possible thing to report that no one bothers reporting because.. lack of emotional hypochondriac crybabies
..
i know both badecker, and tvbcof want people to sue the medical system for all needle pricks and expected symptoms like fever and slight muscle pain for a couple days.
but the world outside tvbcof and badeckers cult bubble understand that monor expected things. are not adverse reactions.

..
anyway.. the death count is near accurate(given time delays). the needle prick ouchies are inaccurate to a scale of 99.99% missing

fake
even the university advertised in the myth announced it never done any studies on campus
whereby the claim is of a professors opinion. but where the provinance of the substance photographed is no proof of being the vaccine fluid nor that the photo contains graphine. just 2 pics that look alike

the idea is not to actually do a proper scientific test. but to produce some lame imagery and claim the imagery is X and then use that to coerce real science to actually do real tests to prove/debunk

its not final proof. its wizardy try coerce others to do the tests. thus meaningless

other actual studies done around the world independantly have tested the contents of real vials where they can trace the supply route from the manufacturer to the lab. and can show actual lab results.. and they all show no graphene..
its called product quality assurance tests.. they happen alot

you have precisely by your own admission only a few weeks knowledge on topics like LN
i know you have joined the promotion of alternate network hype gang of utopian overpromises

but take a step back and realise people want to know about flaws and issues.. and not just be pumped with hype and dreams

yes i dont give kiss-ass hugging messages of hope. but atleast look passed the tone of my messages that fluffy dreamers hate and realise the actual reality of the situations i talk about

oh
and 21m btc is not a hard rule
20,999,999,999,xxx sats is the hard rule of limited supply
if you think its about 'btc' then do try and i mean this really try to find a raw transaction in the blockchain whos output value is "1" where 1 represents a btc
.. heck ill be nice to you,.. there isnt any

if your here to make friends and create a social culture divide.. fine, thats your business
im here because i care about bitcoin(not other network)

(sorry to other readers for the social drama of the altnet hypers)

in short
if its easier to share.. then its not hard to get

gold is not scarce.. everyone on this forum has gold. its in the device your reading this message in right now.
easy to find easy to get

maybe if you discover the words sharable units. and understand scarcity in regards to shares of units.
you will understand what scarcity is

btc at code level does not exist. you will not find any btc in any raw transaction data. no btc on the blockchain.
its all measured in sats..
always have been

the measures known as bits(100sat) millibits(10000sats(0.001btc) and btc are just graphic multiplication on the user display for easy human reading

knowing that there has been a hard rule of sats.. and a human construct multiplication of btc
is the same as the '10min block' thing in reality being 2016 blocks a fortnight hard rule not a 10min rule

but thats the symantecs debate

the economic rule is limited satoshi supply where breaking up satoshis into even more units that can be shared. is making it less scarce. because more people get a slice

it then becomes that bitcoin is not 100,000,000x of the smallest unit of measure basket term
but then becomes a basket term for even more sharable units
emphasis of sharable units

increasing the blockreward is not been a viable option
on a technical level its not hard
but the economical/political/algo promise bases.. it breaks the moral rules

bitcoin was designed from day one to release 5000000000sats every block and half every 210k blocks. leading to a moral/economic rule of total circulation limit of 2100000000000000sats
changing this breaks the moral economic code of limited supply

doesnt matter if its changing the smallest unit of measure into even smallest sharable units of measure or changing it to produce more current measures. both have been ruled out as viable options due to the scarcity promise of limited supply

yes this is the key method forward. it then allows more utility.
at the moment 2500tx only allows for 360000 people to make one transaction a day if uniformly and fairly used by everyone

but to also help with the equal share or chance to get a 'slot' the transaction fee desperately needs a fee formulae..
not the current rule where
segwit pays ~same sat/weight
legacy pays ~same sat/weight*4

but where the utxo's age becomes a consideration.
where by spammers pay more than infrequent users. deterring spammers.. thus not turning the blocks into spam blocks leaving random users bottlenecked paying higher to compete

for instance right now its possible and does not break any consensus or morals
to change the fee policy to not care the ethic hereditary of a transaction(legacy or segwit) but instead just count the utxo blockheight vs current blockheight at new transaction creation/broadcast. and give anyone spending under 72block(half a day) a 4X premium
or more creatively set 1confirm as 144x and descend down to 1x if coin over 144 confirms

seeing as he said


"suppose they get the same work"
meaning he sent his friend the same block header details..
meaning both worked on same block. with same coinbase

then its technically not solomining but 2party pool mining
but as in my previous post i explained all the effects and after effects of friends wasted efforts and angers at doing this with both starting at the same nonce beginning

any language which allows
write to disk (save to hard drive)
connect to peer direct(IP connection)(i suppose HTTP methods can do. but then every user needs a webserver)

.
some web languages are crap. but as long as you can store and transfer data. then you can have fun with HOW and WHO and WHY

bitcon is not some AI that magically tells you some work..
your the solo miner. YOUR setting the parameters. so YOU are the one setting the work sequences you and friend will work on

in this case
you are. as said. being silly by YOU choosing to set your mining script to both do the same work. and waste your friends time.
your friend will probably get angry at you for wasting his time, and tell you to change your silly mining script to offer him a split of the sequence your not working on, for the next time you both want to work on the same next block..

solution would be you and him agree
person A sets his mining algo to do: N0000001EN001 to N9999999EN499
person B sets his mining algo to do: N0000001EN500 to N9999999EN999

and you both flip a coin to decide who is A and who is B. and you both set your parameters in your scripts
then your increasing your odds of getting a solution by 2x
and if one of you finds the solution number that a hash meets the difficulty of.
then you both can broadcast it. and get the reward. and then fight over who gets what % of the win

..
if your question was about
person A sets his mining algo to do: N0000001EN001 to N9999999EN499
person B sets his mining algo to do: N0000001EN500 to N9999999EN999
where both had the same amount of possible attempts. same hard ware, same block. same everything will you both finish each's possible sequences at the same time..
kinda yes. but technically no
by you being the blockbuilder and parameter setter you get the head start. because sending him the parameter and him entering it and him then starting. means you get a head start on him and you finish your attempts ahead of him

lets make it simple

imagine a pool makes a block
it has for simple maths a nonce range of 0000001-9999999  and an extra nonce range of 001-999
what a POOL would do is not get all miners to start at
N0000001EN001 and all try every possible option upto
N9999999EN999
thats a waste of time everyone doing the same work

instead if it had say 10 workers, would split the possible work up
worker 1: N0000001EN001 to N999999EN099
worker 2: N0000001EN100 to N999999EN199
worker 3: N0000001EN200 to N999999EN299
..
worker 10: N0000001EN900 to N999999EN999

so that they are all doing separate stages of all possible work, increasing the odds of finding a solution faster
(the sequence splitting allotments(shares) are more complex then this. but im making it simple)
..
however if you are a solo miner. making your own block and you had a friend who you want to work on YOURBLOCK .. well.
you can do any pattern of splitting you like.. and yes you can tell your friend to start at the same sequence as you..
.. but why would you want to.. you/him doing double work is just wasting each others time..

..
if you were however making your own block. and your friend was solo mining his own different block
then no both of you are not wasting time by both starting at
N0000001EN001
because you both have different blocks. meaning different hashes. meaning different results.
but those attempts cannot be shared

EG if his attempt

N00056701EN150 got him a result that met the network difficulty.
him telling you he solved a block at N00056701EN150 does not mean your block will have a result at the same N00056701EN150
your result with a solution that meets the difficulty minimum will be found at a different nonce/extra nonce
because you and him are doing separate work on separate pieces of data that are not interchangable

i said HM will have 1
you said 'no as [HM] would have more then one' but then you explained it by saying no one said [hm] should stop when getting a 'good enough' hash..
.. weird explanation.. because by your suggestion.. not stopping means continuing 1 hash but even stronger
.. you then said no point splitting hashrate.. meanign you also suggest not working on second hash

meaning you ended up explaining yourself into a scenario where [hm] does infact end up with 1 key:hash proof of block 2008
(you talked yourself into agreeing with what my scenario suggested in the first place)

sooo.. going with my first scenario suggestion of [hm] sticking with one key:hash proof of block 2008 that is super strong. rather than splitting his hash for multiple attempts of the 1hour 2008 proof of weaker key:hash

as you then say the special 'proof block' lists 2016 key:hash by hashrate.
so knowing [MMP] has been making 2016key:hash
[mmp] gets more listings in the special block and [hm] only has 1 chance

..
then when forming the special block.
[hm] templates his own list 1key. and his preferred 2016 keys he has had relayed to him from competitors
and he makes his own attempt at special block
[mmp] template ignoring competitors relayed to them.. and just list their own 2016 keys, meeting min diff.
and they pool mine [mmp1to8] and make their own special block with more combined hash than [hm]

thus [mmp] win as they done most work on the special block
thus their listed preferred key:hash of 2016 keys get to be the PoS signers for the next fortnight

and now mmp can do their own gaming of the system in secret.

..
again for a reminder all the 2016 keys of the next session of the winning special block are [mmp] managed
meaning only their listed keys can make blocks.
this opens up 2 attacks
1. PoS mine all blocks in 7 hours secretly. broadcast publicly at prescribed times
2. because they're the only miners allowed to mine for next fortnight.. they can just all NOT broadcast anything for whole fortnight

(yes 2 means loss of reward revenue due to not making blocks to have rewards)
but its still a stall event for a fortnight

the mRNA is not instructions to make or edit DNA
it is not even instructed to breach the nucleus barrier
it just goes into the ribosome to make a protein

LEAN SOME FACTS

im not patching holes of any errors on my side
im actually dumbing down the science until its soo simple that even your anti-vaxx idiots can understand basic science

oh and no. your statement
"if you are protected by your spike protein for a few weeks"
is so wrong on so many levels. im starting to think you lack basic common sense

the spike protein does not protect you for a couple weeks
the spike is the invader announcing its existance where it shouldnt be.
 your body for a few weeks(before the spike naturally disintigrates) has an oppertunity to notice the invader and do something about it. (hopefuly in hours/days.. not weeks) and learn from the experience
and remember the experience long term

but if your body refuses to identify an invader. thats got nothing to do with the invader. thats your natural body not doing its job properly