BFL Power efficiency argument fallacy

[molecular]

Who would lose if Bitcoin went to $100 today?
Why nickel and dime the miners who are the machine?

Early people who preordered mining hardware would be screwed if BTC jumped to $100, unless they paid with fiat. People who just recently purchased pre-order hardware would be doubly screwed.

when I did the jalapeno->"little single whatever" upgrade, BFL wanted FIAT via paypal only. The jalapeno was payed in bitcoin, true, but when I buy things using bitcoin, I replenish the supply by buying more using FIAT.

[1715337996]

1715337996

[1715337996]

1715337996

[abeaulieu]

If mining is a marginal industry then Bitcoin is, and always will be, marginal.

Bitcoin Mining is just a subset of Bitcoin. Just because mining is marginal does not make the currency itself marginal.

[firefop]

If mining is a marginal industry then Bitcoin is, and always will be, marginal.

Bitcoin Mining is just a subset of Bitcoin. Just because mining is marginal does not make the currency itself marginal.

Correct - also, mining isn't marginal - it's the core design... without miners there isn't a bitcoin network.

That being said - Everyone needs to just stop freaking out about ASICs. a single will make what a single makes, and a rig will make what a rig makes... You'll still be struggling for some percentage of the entire network. We need to start focusing on growing bitcoin as a network, instead of just profit taking.

Lets get those transactions fees high enough to replace the block reward entirely. Yes? Great...

[molecular]

If mining is a marginal industry then Bitcoin is, and always will be, marginal.

Bitcoin Mining is just a subset of Bitcoin. Just because mining is marginal does not make the currency itself marginal.

Correct - also, mining isn't marginal - it's the core design... without miners there isn't a bitcoin network.

That being said - Everyone needs to just stop freaking out about ASICs. a single will make what a single makes, and a rig will make what a rig makes... You'll still be struggling for some percentage of the entire network. We need to start focusing on growing bitcoin as a network, instead of just profit taking.

Lets get those transactions fees high enough to replace the block reward entirely. Yes? Great...

If you mean: keep the fees low but increase the number of transactions, then I'm all for it. Let's see how bitcoin scales.

[abeaulieu]

If mining is a marginal industry then Bitcoin is, and always will be, marginal.

Bitcoin Mining is just a subset of Bitcoin. Just because mining is marginal does not make the currency itself marginal.

Correct - also, mining isn't marginal - it's the core design... without miners there isn't a bitcoin network.

That being said - Everyone needs to just stop freaking out about ASICs. a single will make what a single makes, and a rig will make what a rig makes... You'll still be struggling for some percentage of the entire network. We need to start focusing on growing bitcoin as a network, instead of just profit taking.

Lets get those transactions fees high enough to replace the block reward entirely. Yes? Great...

Agreed. Everyone benefits from growing the network. At the very least there will be much more stability. If it grows enough then the price per BTC should increase as well. And yes more transactions could make the transaction fees earned by miners actually worth it.

[punningclan]

To clarify, the miner's take all the capital risk of the Bitcoin protocol.

[bitboyben]

OMG WTFBBQ.
Power will be crucial.

I'm with Organofcorti on this one. The math doesn't lie.

As for gen two? You will not be required to upgrade. 65->45nm wont be enough of an improvement to shut miners out. Also your 60w device is good to about 600TH network hash rate with 1 yr ROI! If the price climbs more you can still hash at higher difficulties.

But if you want, the hardware would have trade in value at bfl, 50% or so has been what the fpgas are worth at upgrade time. reduced capital expenses, reduced power consumption.

RPi host ftw.

You're welcome.

(man I'm in a pissy mod or what?)

[firefop]

If you mean: keep the fees low but increase the number of transactions, then I'm all for it. Let's see how bitcoin scales.

Yes of course. Grow the potential gain from mining by having more transactions leaving the fees at current rates.

To be honest, once the average fees per block surpass 50btc - I'd expect that the next logical step make blocks happen faster. With the eventual goal being a block every 2 mins. This would be the final step in making the network robust enough to actually compete with traditional point of sale networks.

Now we could wait for that growth of mining rewards to happen naturally - but there might be a chance that this gets done early, assuming that the network gets into the 2000+ transaction per second range.

[organofcorti]

I could see how power consumption could be a big deal for someone paying .2 or .3, but I don't think that most people pay that much, especially in the US.

Sorry, I hadn't realised this was a "US only" thread

There are lots of miners paying US$0.20 - US$0.30 per kWh. Of course, I don't know exactly how many. Maybe the US miners vastly outnumber the non-US miners, and power consumption won't matter. Or maybe all miners will relocate their machines to US data centres in states with cheap electricity (that'd be my preferred option).

But without data on how many miners pay a certain amount for electricity, you really can't know if there's going to be a "chilling effect" on the network hashrate any time soon.

[CoinHoarder]

Sorry, I hadn't realised this was a "US only" thread

No no, my apologies, it is not a US only thread  . I see your point. I would be much more concerned about power consumption if I was paying .20c or .30c per KWh

[PuertoLibre]

I could see how power consumption could be a big deal for someone paying .2 or .3, but I don't think that most people pay that much, especially in the US.

{snip...]Or maybe all miners will relocate their machines to US data centres in states with cheap electricity (that'd be my preferred option).

But without data on how many miners pay a certain amount for electricity, you really can't know if there's going to be a "chilling effect" on the network hashrate any time soon.

How much does this cost?

Is it affordable to do this?

If so, how does someone go about doing what you described? (collocating  I think it is called.)

[organofcorti]

I could see how power consumption could be a big deal for someone paying .2 or .3, but I don't think that most people pay that much, especially in the US.

{snip...]Or maybe all miners will relocate their machines to US data centres in states with cheap electricity (that'd be my preferred option).

But without data on how many miners pay a certain amount for electricity, you really can't know if there's going to be a "chilling effect" on the network hashrate any time soon.

How much does this cost?

I don't know yet.

Is it affordable to do this?

I don't know yet.

If so, how does someone go about doing what you described? (collocating  I think it is called.)

I don't know yet.

What I would do is start by posting your request on a board in this forum. Find some well known long time and respected members who run or work at a data centre are willing to do what you're asking, and find out how much they'd charge per month. If you don't want to SSH in to manage your miners, find out if they'll manage them for you, and if so how much extra that will cost.

Then, once you have all the data, collate it into a table, and then pm me with it. Then I'll be able to edit my post and supply you with the details you're after It's not that I'm lazy, I just haven't put an ASIC order in yet.

[firefop]

I could see how power consumption could be a big deal for someone paying .2 or .3, but I don't think that most people pay that much, especially in the US.

{snip...]Or maybe all miners will relocate their machines to US data centres in states with cheap electricity (that'd be my preferred option).

But without data on how many miners pay a certain amount for electricity, you really can't know if there's going to be a "chilling effect" on the network hashrate any time soon.

How much does this cost?

Is it affordable to do this?

If so, how does someone go about doing what you described? (collocating  I think it is called.)

It would simply involve shipping your hardware to the datacenter location - and then paying a housing fee (think electricty + bandwidth costs + a small margin for profit). Personally, I'd be happy to house your mining equipment - you can manage it via remote session and I'm sure we could work out a percentage based on what your current power costs are.

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

[organofcorti]

It would simply involve shipping your hardware to the datacenter location - and then paying a housing fee (think electricty + bandwidth costs + a small margin for profit). Personally, I'd be happy to house your mining equipment - you can manage it via remote session and I'm sure we could work out a percentage based on what your current power costs are.

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

Well, PuertoLibre, it turns out that you could just ask firepfop. How much do you pay for electricity? Would you be housing equipment at home or do you have/work at a datacentre?

[PuertoLibre]

I could see how power consumption could be a big deal for someone paying .2 or .3, but I don't think that most people pay that much, especially in the US.

{snip...]Or maybe all miners will relocate their machines to US data centres in states with cheap electricity (that'd be my preferred option).

But without data on how many miners pay a certain amount for electricity, you really can't know if there's going to be a "chilling effect" on the network hashrate any time soon.

How much does this cost?

Is it affordable to do this?

If so, how does someone go about doing what you described? (collocating  I think it is called.)

It would simply involve shipping your hardware to the datacenter location - and then paying a housing fee (think electricty + bandwidth costs + a small margin for profit). Personally, I'd be happy to house your mining equipment - you can manage it via remote session and I'm sure we could work out a percentage based on what your current power costs are.

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

If I am not mistaken it is around 0.095 cents per kwh. (It fluctuates as the electrical company here changes the rates every few months.)

Edit: I have heard that Datacenters pay the cheaper wholesale rate of .045 -> .01 per kwh.

I also asked because I have just purchased my first [used] blade server and would consider collocation.

I don't mine so my current costs are zero in that vein.

[mrb]

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

If I am not mistaken it is around 0.095 cents per kwh. (It fluctuates as the electrical company here changes the rates every few months.)

You are mistaken You mean 9.5 cents or $0.095 per kWh.

[abeaulieu]

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

If I am not mistaken it is around 0.095 cents per kwh. (It fluctuates as the electrical company here changes the rates every few months.)

You are mistaken You mean 9.5 cents or $0.095 per kWh.

why does everyone seem to struggle with dollars vs. cents.

[hardcore-fs]

For us to find a starting point, what are your current power draw and cost?

If I am not mistaken it is around 0.095 cents per kwh. (It fluctuates as the electrical company here changes the rates every few months.)

You are mistaken You mean 9.5 cents or $0.095 per kWh.

why does everyone seem to struggle with dollars vs. cents.

I wish I could use 10Kwh of electricity for less than a cent, but this does highlight WHY so many people think they can buy a Rolls Royce after mining bitcoins for a week.