How far could bitcoin mining take us - literally

[FUBAR-BDHR]

People were on IRC talking about the rocket launch when someone joked about how much beer you could get into space in 6913 pounds of cargo.  I joked about how many bitcoins could fit (yea just the device that was kind of the joke) when it hit me.  How many miners could a rocket launch power?  So lets reverse that question.  How far could the power that all miners use get us.  It varies over time so lets just say 1 month of mining power into distance in one month.  Time is a factor since people would start using ion drives otherwise.

[Junko]

Too the moon, obv.

jk,jk.

Though I do remember back in the day when AMD graphics cards were used to mine bitcoin, there were people who were able to provide enough heating with their mining rigs to keep a room warm during the cold winter months.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

Too the moon, obv.

jk,jk.

Though I do remember back in the day when AMD graphics cards were used to mine bitcoin, there were people who were able to provide enough heating with their mining rigs to keep a room warm during the cold winter months.

I heated my whole house with 2 s5 4 s3 and an s1.  Should have kept one more s1 for the really cold months my gas usages would have covered the cost of running it.

[odolvlobo]

In theory, it takes about 65 MJ to accelerate 1 kg to escape velocity. in practice, it takes much more because the fuel required to expend that amount of energy must also be accelerated.

[alteredbubbler]

Not very far, the expenses that it would cost to build a good mining rig plus how much it would add to your electric bill would make it very hard to profit from bitcoin mining.

[Kprawn]

Are you talking about building some kind of electrical device that could create thrust, without the use of some combustible minerals? I imagine the only thing you can use, is

some combination of mini helicopter rotors, attached to the body of the rocket... but I doubt that you would be able to lift it, without booster rockets. You will also have to

store this energy/electricity in batteries, and that will add to the weight. No amount of batteries will cancel out the weight needed to lift it, and you cannot use a electric

cord... So you are basically f@#$.

[pereira4]

It depends on the amount of competition to stay relevant in the mining game. If technology keeps getting developed, the sky is literally the limit. I think we will see in the future underground mining facilities in the middle of the sea at very cold temperatures, or in the artic, just crazy shit. And as technology becomes better, it will be more efficient and less polluting, so that wouldn't be a problem.

[pattim]

There's actually a really important physical fact which I don't see anyone talking about.  It's this: the electrical power it takes to "mine."  Remember that mining is a euphemism - it's a way to introduce resource constraints into the generation of pseudocoins.  But the resource constraints are *real* - as all miners know - paying for electricity.  Ignoring the electricity and pollution in China creating ASIC miners...  the electricity for mining comes (these days) overwhelmingly from fossil-fuel power plants, which dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.  So there's not only diminishing power (for mining) from resource constraints, but also an impact on global atmospheric and ocean warming, which will further disrupt resource flows in the future.  Looked at this way, the growth of Btc is likely a very bad thing. 

So if Btc is survives, it will be forced to be easier to mine (less electricity, less CO2) in the future, or transaction blocks just won't get validated, which will kill the currency.  Easier transaction calculations means that the early adopters and those who can control large resources will become fabulously wealthy (this will make a few very happy) and will de-facto be in control, and the result of the Btc experiment becomes just another form of resource destruction benefiting the few.

As a physicist, and an amateur cryptographer, I've been trying to see a way out of this scenario.  The power needed for mining is the key and there's no way around that, again, as all miners know.  The bitter irony is that all this destruction of fossil fuels by Btc is mainly dedicated to just validating transactions (supporting commerce) - not to producing anything of actual utility/value, like transportation fuel, medical instruments and drugs, food, commodities.  By contrast, the fiat currency, say, a 10oz block of silver, after fossil fuel energy is invested in the mining and refining, it remains an energy-free currency.  It can be used (as a currency) at will with no more energy inputs.  But every time Btc is used, more fossil fuel must be expended to verify transactions.  So, purely as a money system, Btc seems intrinsically hostile to the planet.

Of course, if this were Star Trek or schlock M., or some other future with unlimited power, Btc might not be a bad idea.

Patricia

[NorrisK]

In theory, it takes about 65 MJ to accelerate 1 kg to escape velocity. in practice, it takes much more because the fuel required to expend that amount of energy must also be accelerated.

According to google converter, 1 MJ equals about 0.277 kw/h

To launch 1 kg to escape velocity would mean about 50 kw/h or about 50 hours of mining on an antminer s7 (around 1 kw/h).

Let's say a rocket weights around 300,000 kg, that means you can mine around 15,000,000 hours on an antminer s7.

[odolvlobo]

So if Btc is survives, it will be forced to be easier to mine (less electricity, less CO2) in the future, or transaction blocks just won't get validated, which will kill the currency.  Easier transaction calculations means that the early adopters and those who can control large resources will become fabulously wealthy (this will make a few very happy) and will de-facto be in control, and the result of the Btc experiment becomes just another form of resource destruction benefiting the few.

As a physicist, and an amateur cryptographer, I've been trying to see a way out of this scenario.  The power needed for mining is the key and there's no way around that, again, as all miners know.  The bitter irony is that all this destruction of fossil fuels by Btc is mainly dedicated to just validating transactions (supporting commerce) - not to producing anything of actual utility/value, like transportation fuel, medical instruments and drugs, food, commodities.  By contrast, the fiat currency, say, a 10oz block of silver, after fossil fuel energy is invested in the mining and refining, it remains an energy-free currency.  It can be used (as a currency) at will with no more energy inputs.  But every time Btc is used, more fossil fuel must be expended to verify transactions.  So, purely as a money system, Btc seems intrinsically hostile to the planet.

First, making bitcoins easier to mine won't reduce the electricity used because of the economics: the amount of electricity used will increase until it's cost equals the value of the bitcoins produced.

Second, the concern over excessive use of resources is overblown. The resources used to mine bitcoins are a small fraction of many other financial activities. For example, the cost of printing currency in the U.S. was more than double the cost of mining Bitcoins.

Finally, the cost of mining is not for nothing. It ensures the integrity of Bitcoin. This cost is also present in other monetary systems, and is probably much higher than Bitcoin. The U.S. spends $375 million per year fighting counterfeiting.

[dearbesz]

Bitcoin mining in that some merchants and services will accept bitcoin as payment. ... And that brings us to both bitcoin mining and crime. ..... A ten minute search on youtube will reveal literally hundreds of options for cheap and free power. Now, as far as policy and law enforcement goes... wish you luck