So franky:
firstly. where are you even getting the idea about guy travelling up to 100th floor
where are you getting the idea about energy excersion of me lifting a cup to my lips to drink own pee
where are you getting the idea of pumping water upstream to fill reservoirs...
I never said to pump water up to fill the reservoirs
I was strictly talking about efficiency in your golden example.
Rather than recycling the water that guy will eliminate from the x floor, it's more efficient to let him pee at the entrance than
having the elevator carrying him with the extra weight.
again your mentioning the need for elevators.. meaning water has to go up........ (facepalm)
no, no and no. ill say it one more time
it goes downstream. collect in a second area DOWNSTREAM and goes down again... there is no up
but instead of stopping the river. using the water once and then let it travel un reused. to just give it to the sea.
the idea is to have more dams downstream to then reuse the water as it travels...DOWNSTREAM
by the way its not a problem of physics.. but cost and bureaucracy of digging holes concreting walls and displacing residents in the way.
Franky, let's stick to the Danube since I've brought this up.
The Danube drops 32 meters from the Iron gates in 1000 km.
You will have to dig 20 times more earth than the Panama canal to create a dam and deepen the river bed to make the water flow to the sea after the new dam. Not even talking about what will happen to the ports water pumping stations that are going to have to lift water from 30 -20 meter deeper for the population
You're going to spend more energy doing that than the powerplant will produce in a millennium
yea you brought up a river thats a crap example and one we both agree is not supportive of such due to cost.
you said it above and you quoted me as i show below. that its about politics and costs and that it would affect the population.. which the electricity demand for the area is not high enough to sway the argument to change that... so why mention the danube.. it has nothing to do with bitcoin mining or hydropower to power bitcoin mining.
no one would be foolish to set up a mining farm in that area..
the reason the danube doesnt have more dams is because politicians wont allow it as it then stops boats travelling upstream
it seems transporting goods up river is more important then making walls to make electricity down river
You're not familiar with how things are in Europe.
The Canal de la Marne au Rhin has no more than
154 locks, one every 2 km
i am familiar..
im in the UK we have hundreds of canals and thousands of canal locks.. the stupid thing you dont see is you cant use a dam as a 'lock'
a dam is a dam and a lock is a lock. if your going to dam a river you dam a river. boats cant go up
so the only time you dam a river is if the demand for electric outweight the public need for an open river
Switching to hashrate
now if the price goes down below the $6k he is paying.. he actually thinks.. well there is no point buying new equipment this week. but i can buy btc on the market below $6k. and actually turn off some rigs. meaning they can renegotiate the electric allotment they have not used this week. to be allowed to be used at the 53rd week
now if the price rises. they are not forced to do anything... they can all just mine at the same rate. and spend their profits investing in other businesses (yep they do that)
or replace thir rigs with less costly equipment. so that they can let the energy companies give them a few extra weeks extension at the end of the year because they didnt need to use it during the year...
Everything is right if we consider this a close game.
But when the price goes up, so does the number of miners, which start with new equipment and new costs.
nope. it does not play out as short term minded as you think
i know your thinking when the price jumped to $20k from novembers lower rate.. that the hashrate must have jumped 3-4fold
no
here ill show you. no spike in december 2017 from
btc.com
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTC.com&t=abtc.top
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTC.TOP&t=aantpool
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=AntPool&t=anow. here is the thing. the pools above are the main pools that think long term and progress at a periodic growth and when prices go up they dont ramp up more machines 4x and then ramp down just as fast.
Eg the dont ramp up 4x december and ramp down 4x in spring 2018
they make profit and spread it across the year and then progress over the year.
..
now look at these short term pools. you know the ones that now laughingly only have 1% of network hash who are small minded and dont play "the game"
https://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/hashrate/2y?mining_pool=BTCC+Pool&t=aas you can see they did foolishly sheep follow the price. ..
and if you were to rmeember last year btcc was one of the big names. now its only 1% of network hashpower.
they switched off too many rigs. sold of too many coins in january and then bought too many rigs in january. tried t run them too soon. and by march they had to drop down their rigs again by march
(facepalm) thus now they are stuck with rigs left to gather dust. and no spare cashflow to play any games with..
yea the recent news that bitmain is in trouble is actually that btcc are in trouble.
bitmain are happy spending money in investing in other companies while btcc is closing down business.. as i said btcc is now in the 1% bracket.
if mining is at a 43terrahash month minimum.. ($5800 at per btc mining COST) (i done the math it works out. its in my post history if your bored)
If you really have said something like this....I'm starting to feel disappointed.
You've calculated the costs per BTC? Common!!!
then knowing the btc PRICE is only a bit above that.. so in your mindset. miners in december should have been mining at 120terrahash. because PRICES were 3x so hashrate could/would/should have been 3X 'because they could afford to'
sorry but no. it dont work like that.
you will see miners in the MAJORITY only increase 5-10% as a planned periodic growth. if bitcoin went to $1m a coin in under 2 years. you wont see mining pools jump to network hash of 6.6zetahash overnight (using the metrics of this generations ASICs)($900k)
It didn't because there wasn't any miner left to be sold and added to the network.
Price for miners jumped to even 3000$ for a used s9 first generation in December.
If the price goes x10 in a week miners will not be able to add new gear even if they wanted to, mining equipment is not bread, hasn't the last video card shortage taught you that?
lol im laughing
you should be a comedian
you do know bitmain make them right.
i explained above bitmain and the smart pools play the long game.. its actually BTCC that played the short game buying up rigs and then getting face slapped because they ramped up mining too fast due to december.
- hashrate charts dont lie.-
as i said. its stupid that when you make profit. to spend all your profit just to work harder.. btcc learned that the hard way
where as bitmain that have no ASIC shortage and COULD HAVE ramped up their hashrate in december. but they didnt. they played the long game.
anyway.. the bigger point is not about the ATH but sustaining the LOW which sits above $5800
anyway nice talking to you, enjoyed your diverted comments about rivrs unrelated to mining and the comedy of you thinking water has to go uphill via lifting cups of pee or using elevator analogies.. was real funny you cant grasp the concept of down stream...
but great comedy any.. have a nice day