The article itself mentioned nothing about bitcoin or these chips being used for that. I think 3nm chip technology is a fairly new space though and it'll probably take a while for bitcoin to start using 3nm chips in ASICs.

According to a quick search, I can find most chips are 7nm or 10nm (bitcoin currently mostly uses 7nm chips afaik - there are also 5nm chips on your article that haven't even been produced for crypto mining yet too). Realistically, all three should be coming at some point, it's just a case of when (and if these chips will be able to provide the same operations the larger chips can).

Because of the economics of Bitcoin mining, improved efficiency does not reduce the overall energy consumption. Bitcoin energy consumption depends primarily on the cost of energy and the value of the block reward, and efficiency affects neither of those.

The fact is to make sure this chip works and is distributed people would still have to wait, samsung itself said to wait for the second half of the 2022 they are targeting it because of TNMC a Taiwanese company therefore the one who is able to successfully complete this first would be able to take it in the market and complete further steps. I think it's not just about the technology it's also about the competition which can be very beneficial for people who are involved in mining since competition produces good cost price and also improves the overall technology.

Samsung has been making chips for ASICs for years, it's not something new, it was a demand that has driven up prices for those and that's what caught the attention of foundries as mining gear manufacturers were able to pay a heft premium for each chip. Now that revenues from mining are 1/3 of what they were it means less income for miners, less expensive gear being sold, less revenue per gear, and less money to overpay for fabs.

I think they are paying less and less attention since they already know energy prices are pushing miners out of the game and that in order to sell thems you need to make stuff that is both profitable for you, for the manufacturer, and for the miner. When selling a phone, you don't have to go through all this math, and phone sales won't drop by 50% cause some idiot Ponzi schemer ran a company into bankruptcy.
Also, you don't change your ASIC because this year's new model has a better camera and more battery life or a better screen!


And we see Nviaida limiting their cards to be less attractive to miners....


With TSMC alone selling in one year 7 years of bitcoin mining revenue worth of chips it's a tiny drop, maybe not in the ocean but still in quite a large beer stein.

What he is saying is that the reward dictates how much money miners could theoretically spend in order to keep being profitable, the reward is the cap on energy consumption.  Efficiency matters only in terms of hashrate generated with a $x reward per block, or for personal finances not global.


No, it doesn't work that way, if everyone would replace a gear rated 300W and 100th/s with one rated 3000w and 200th/s the consumption will not grow, the margin rate will neither since you get the same share for the same cost, the hash rate will go up but without increased energy needs.
The income per th/s vs cost per th/s generated is affecting global energy consumption, if the revenue is higher more miners will put gear to mine, if it goes negative so does the hashrate, as it's happening now.

By "cost of energy", I mean the cost to purchase a joule of energy. In short, the energy consumption (in joules) to produce a bitcoin, E, approaches

E ⟶  P  / C

where

P is the average price of a bitcoin in $
C is the average cost of electricity in $/J

The reason that hash rate and efficiency are irrelevant is that the difficulty adjustments keep production constant, regardless of the hash rate, the amount of energy used, the efficiency of the equipment, and the amount miners are willing to spend.

However, assuming that miners (in the aggregate) are striving to be profitable, they will spend as much as they can on energy up to the value of the bitcoins they produce. So, the value of the energy consumed producing a bitcoin (E x C) approaches the value of the bitcoin (P). Thus, E ⟶  P  / C. Note that there are other variable costs, but energy is the biggest and it's what we are concerned about here.



Small contradiction there. If using the same amount of energy, the energy required per bitcoin would be the same and would not increase. Note that I am assuming a time frame that includes difficulty adjustments and time for miners to add or remove equipment. An increase in efficiency would reduce energy consumption at least until the next difficulty adjustment, but consumption would return as miners compete for a bigger share.

Yes, but the point is also that big brands keep their I&D teams working on these chips, means the there is market for them.

The fact that you think they are paying less attention to mining industry seems to be more of a misunderstanding about Bitcoin. But I believetheu unserstand, at keats part of it.