[2020-08-27] DCG is betting $100 million on mining Bitcoin in North America

[figmentofmyass]

Trump, or rather his advisors(because I bet Trump himself doesn't know a damn thing about Bitcoin mining), should change their attitude as soon as possible, if they want to be the winners in the war. BTC mining should be subsided by government because only a few private entrepreneurs can tolerate the occasional price dumps. Like any relatively new forward-looking business, it should be supported by government to thrive.

Hell no. Let it live and die on its own virtues. No taxpayer is going to be delighted at paying some miner to make money. If they can't cut it then it's their problem and they have to make way for someone who can and that's how it should be.

it's an interesting question, actually.

consider states like australia, whose economy is based heavily on mineral and fossil fuel extraction. both federal and state governments subsidize miners extremely heavily---their effective tax rate is a fraction of all other sectors.

if bitcoin mining were to become significant in terms of GDP and the labor market, i reckon they would become increasingly subsidized for the same reasons. local governments, particularly in economically blighted regions, have even more incentive to subsidize miners for the sake of local job creation.

[1714056786]

1714056786

[1714056786]

1714056786

[Betwrong]

Trump, or rather his advisors(because I bet Trump himself doesn't know a damn thing about Bitcoin mining), should change their attitude as soon as possible, if they want to be the winners in the war. BTC mining should be subsided by government because only a few private entrepreneurs can tolerate the occasional price dumps. Like any relatively new forward-looking business, it should be supported by government to thrive.

Hell no. Let it live and die on its own virtues. No taxpayer is going to be delighted at paying some miner to make money. If they can't cut it then it's their problem and they have to make way for someone who can and that's how it should be.

it's an interesting question, actually.

consider states like australia, whose economy is based heavily on mineral and fossil fuel extraction. both federal and state governments subsidize miners extremely heavily---their effective tax rate is a fraction of all other sectors.

if bitcoin mining were to become significant in terms of GDP and the labor market, i reckon they would become increasingly subsidized for the same reasons. local governments, particularly in economically blighted regions, have even more incentive to subsidize miners for the sake of local job creation.

That's what I mean. Of course taxpayers don't have to help miners to make money. But taxpayers can help future themselves to get more job opportunities, with, probably, some good pay.  It's a fact that we are living in a world where many old jobs are vanishing, so many new jobs must be created in the same pace, at least.

[claire_lovely]

This is pretty amazing. I'm wondering what sources of energy they plan to use for the mining, because I always thought it wasn't cost effective in the United States. I saw the plans from BitMain to go to Texas and that state might be best due to 0 state income tax and lower energy cost, and natural gas resources.

[Carlton Banks]

Here we go again, every day we clap how good decentralization is, how resilient Bitcoin is, and how the evil gubbermint can't stop it, and then, the same government should subsidize mining or we're in trouble. How the hell is this any different from the government bailing out banks? If the network can't stand for itself it means we have a serious problem, and patching it with cash will only solve the problem temporarily, and when there is no more cash left to do it, then what?

print some more cash, and lend gift it to mining startups at negative rates? certainly possible in Europe, and apparently becoming more politically feasible in the US. Go-go-GDP!


Overall, I think the gradual embrace of Bitcoin mining by electricity producers is in one way an unfortunate inevitability (as several people have argued already), but in another an important step on the road to Bitcoin's integration into the most fundamental layer of the world economy.

• the current world reserve currency is contract-linked to energy (this contract is, however, increasingly unobserved by big energy exporters)
• Bitcoin is the energy based currency

Being directly energy based was the innovation that set Bitcoin apart from the other attempts to create a permission-less & trustless currency. If energy producers begin to use Bitcoin mining as part of their business model, then one of the absolute root sources of economic production is a BTC stakeholder. To some extent, the energy industry becomes a rival to the central banking institutions. Where previously the banking & energy sectors were in a symbiotic relationship, this change now represents what I think is described as "vertical integration" of the manufacture of energy production with that of transaction tokens, where no possible such integration existed before.

Because energy producers are right at the base layer of the economic system (alongside food production), one of the basic premises for Bitcoin to become systemically influential is moving into place.

I would add to this that huge innovations in the diversification and distribution of energy resources are likely to take place in the medium term. Some will remain in permanent pipe-dream territory, but some will certainly become commercially and economically feasible. Even the past 10-15 years has seen significant changes in where energy come from and who owns the infrastructure to produce it. So, who is mining Bitcoin using their production facilities is set to change in a similar way.