Topic: Blockchain Association - Thoughts over NY's mining ban (Read 255 times)

lets do the math of other industries
(pre-emptive note: stompix the context is not the numerics detail accuracy to decimal levels(facepalm). its the context of the concept of comparable burdens to the grid, (the numbers are just used as a visualisation of the burden))

there are 289m cars registered and 330m population in america
meaning 0.87 cars per person in america

in a decade those cars will need to be electric
going to work or doing the grocery/school run. lets imagine a daily car use of 20miles.

in a e-car that does ~4mile per KW is 5kwh per day per car
thats 289m x 5KW a day = 1,445,000,000kwh a day for the future e-car utility needed (14454gwh /day)

now bitcoin is ~210exa average. with US attributed to being 38% of network(80exa)
now lets use the current gen asics of 140terrahash for 3kw/hour (72kwh a day)
american mining is:
80,000,000terrahash/140=571429 asics = 41,142,857kw/day (41gwh/d)

(whole US, not just NY)
so if 41GW bitcoin is a burden now, the car industries 1445gw(35x) is a huge burden in 10 years.. something they really need to be planning for more so then bitcoin regulations. by a factor of 35x

if they are silent about the car problem. then they need to be 35x more silent about the bitcoin issue

New York is such a huge and rich city that they do not really need new companies. Do not take this personally, they literally said no to an Amazon Warehouse as well. It was suppose to be creating 25 thousand new jobs, imagine having an opportunity that would give 25 thousand! people new jobs, and you saying no.

New York does that, and they are still quite rich even after saying no to all the ideas of building new business centers there, because they are afraid that all these new business' would make New York even bigger, and attract even more people. They need a bit less if anything. So saying "miners should go somewhere else" is a calculated move.

oh mr stompix. .. im going to get to your derailment but i will colour the text grey so those that dont care for it can glaze over and not read it.


to other readers.. my initial posts were not about the numbers. i was using a simple demonstration of common sense context, about where the majority of miners are on the grid thus affected by regulations(which this topic is about)..
heck even in posts using numbers i specifically said the numbers were random numbers plucked out of my head rather than well researched numbers, because the context of the message were not about number specificity and instead about understanding a scenario concept.
.. sorry for stompixes derailment, but he has a major issue with being argumentative and then gets hurt when he gets corrected and doubles down on his knitpicks.. so sorry again about his silly weird cries about his believed approximate numbers are more factual compared to common sense conversations about concepts/sentiments, business plan options.

so stompix:
you do realise the points of me mentioning numbers without going into a wall of text of detailed scientific notated white paper right..
.. because the point of the comment is not about the numbers, but about the methodology and the sentiment of scenarios businesses choose to do in regards to power utility.

but hey if you want to derail to cause arguments with silly knitpicks about numbers.. lets do this

funny stuff that..

oh and look another website that you quote, where they love the word "approximately"
much like your other topics where you link sites which clearly use guesstimates, assumptions and approximations.
please try harder to understand words and plausibility that these number actually atleast sound right in context of common sense and if the subject matter/topic actually requires specific numbers (this topic does not), but if YOU are the one that wants to center your comment around numbers. then please dont go quoting sites that use the words "guesstimate, approximately, assumed).. as it will hit you hard more then the person you are trying to counter. (in your off topic cries)

funny part is when you started crying about number specificity.. you clearly missed my post where i clearly indicated
 (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)
to avoid the talentless knitpickers like yourself that like to derail topics because i didnt use researched numbers.. i clearly state that these numbers were random.. because the exact numbers are not important to the context of the message.

emphasis
.. its obvious that the point of the post is not about the numbers themselves but the context of the scenarios. .. but you still wanted to go down that rabbit hole just to cause an argument.. (facepalm)

now lets do some basic maths. using some more common sense..
based on the links provided by stompix who wants to be numeric specific... and see how well his favoured numbers play out..
lets start with the mining hashrate and number of miners stompix wanted to counter with..
1.6exa / 140terra = 11428 (meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
1.6exa / 110terra = 14545(meaning nope they are not using the 110thash asics)
1.6exa / 95terra = 16842(meaning nope they are not using the 140thash asics)
so what asics are they using, lets use math again
1.6exa/19600asics = 81.6thash average per asic... yuck.. they are not even using efficient asics.

hmm..
i find it more plausible, common sense and business savvi that if they were any good at business they would be using atleast the 95thash asics and running 17k of them to get a 1.6exa.. rather than what they want to publish of running 19k asics of older crappier generation asics.

..
now lets take one more step down the stompix rabbit hole of number specificity in a topic thats not about number specificity
561btc with revenue of $37.7m... for Q1 of 2022
well maths says.. in Q1 they got 561coin at $67k each.......... hmmm
.....hmmm.... oh look the price was never $67k in Q1
(Q1 2022 btc amount using november 2021 prices of a single day..
 maybe they also have a time machine, mined in 2022 and went back in time and sold it all exactly on november 9th 2021(sarcasm obviously).. or.. they are fudging their numbers to look good)

I don't know much about the industry but those I know that are mining, or in the business at least, are trying it out on their own and are very aware they could actually make more if they joined "the grid" or some of the major pools but they simply don't.

It's in fact a point of pride to make it on their own.

If I understand the content of this comment

One thing is clear here...there is no point of doing business with a certain location that is very unfriendly to your type of business and this is very much true with New York as they have become restrictive with any type of industry deemed to be contributing to the climate change and even you have facts to prove your different point of view it would just be a big waste of time convincing them because they have already decided this kind of thing years ago and it is something not even the devil can change. So the question is: Can they not find any other states that will be so welcoming with the same opportunity? The answer is a big YES and that is they should start packing and leave NY anytime soon...or if anyone planning to do business with NY they should just forget it.

This is interesting thought. I love the fact that you explained it on the basis off shelves easiness and how it won’t matter to miners to relocate. But surely everyone thinks that they have proper set up already, different contracts like renting, electricity firms, audits done for safety and what not. As far as US is concerned the audits are always strict and changes state to state. I think it’s still a bit complicated for them to do over the things. Let’s just assume that this would be added cost to their current situation and will change their timelines for profit recovery.

Bla bla bla...One of them is only 3%? So, what does this change?
Because 3% of the fruits in the bag are apples automatically 97% are oranges?

Add them all Franky, I'm sure you're smart enough for that, let's see the results for them, I'm sure since you're so knowledgeable about them you will have no problem identifying every single one of those facilities from all miners, Riot, Hut8, Bitdigital, Core, Mara, Hive and so on and on, or do you want some help with them?
Till you prove the fact that the rest of the 97% are all of them tied to the grid it's just one of your useless verbal diarrhea.


Also, stop relying on google for things, I thought you were smarter than this, or at least you've learned your lesson when you quoted 5 years old news a while ago and made a fool of yourself.
Approximately 1.6 EH/s of mining capacity from approximately 19,600 miners as of April 30, 2022


Let me help you with the next one:
https://ir.marathondh.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1285/marathon-digital-holdings-reports-first-quarter-2022-results
and the third:
https://www.riotblockchain.com/news-media/press-releases/detail/131/riot-blockchain-announces-may-2022-production-and

From here on there are only about 8 major players left.

i love the fact that you want to use small facility examples and ignore all the other mining farms that rely on the grid.. thus affected by rules created to control the national/state grids market supply to the industry..

seems you are trying to knitpick for the sake of causing an argument. rather than understand the bigger picture at the state grid/state government level (this topics ban is about)

yep.. these regulations are about telling power companies to stop supplying asic farms..
BIG EMPHASIS: WHERE THE MAJORITY ARE USING THE GRID

and instead you want to use examples of farms not even part of the grid.. and yes those examples you use are only small facilities that dont give much hashpower to the network thus not really a big hit to the network if they are running or not

the Greenidge has 17k asics..[1]
the network is currently running at 1.5million asics..(140terra hash*~1.5m asics=~212exa give or take 1% hashrate variance)
meaning greenidge is not even 1.2% of the network

a change of 212 exa down to 209.6(-2.4)exa is not even going to be a detail anyone notices at the network hashrate level..

also..
if america is 33% of the network (500,000 asics) then greenidge is 3.4% of america.
also...
[1]

so you want to ignore the other 91.6%+* of mining on the grid (my examples are about the majority) just to talk about some 3.4% of america of some ~8.4% of NY... just to cause an argument??

 and where by its not even part of the main topic about the government stopping utility companies from supplying the industry. because your example is about privately owned production..

so how about you stick to the topic of the 91.6%+ utility* that is part of the grid that is being affected most by the government ban

* atleast 11 out of 12 = atleast 91.6%

Unlike in your fantasy world, a lot of those powerplants were not owned by electricity producers or supplies but worked as a part of a full production chain, for example, the Massana smelter was owned by Alcoa, and Alcoa stopped one of them and shut down production in one facility in 2013.
The Hardin powerplant was put for sale in 2017, and Greenidge was shut down in 2011 because of exactly environmental regulations as it was burning coal and not gas then.

You're trying again to weasel your way out of things when the whole thing started with miners buying energy from one region that has excess energy when it's clear that's nothing about excess, they are producing their own, they don't rely on the grid, they don't care about grid prices or state average or anything and none of those is an issue!
The issue is that they are burning gas and coal to feed their miners because coal is cheaper than anything, that's all of it, and if this would have not been thought they wouldn't be doing it in the first place, RIGHT?


There is no IF!
Some companies mentioned above are publicly traded, they are forced to release their statements, some do this even if they are not required by the law, you can check thee everything, from power capacity to mining gear bought, to cost and taxes.
So stop talking about what you think is going on when there is clear data about what is going on.

The first news from China, they managed to stop Bitcoin mining in their country. I think New York became the destination of the miners in china. The reason for the exhaust emissions, and the energy used is too large, seems unreasonable. In calculations, I have read that the energy used is still within a reasonable level. The reason carbon emissions are so bad is why the government there is not looking for alternatives to overcome instead of stopping mining. I think at the end of the day it's just a rule that the ultimate goal is for the money. Let's see what will happen next. I'm a little disapproving of this rule. Even though I'm not a miner, they're a community of Bitcoin crusters.

and who do you think they buy these plants or contracts from??

power companies wont even sell a gas/coal power plant privately unless they knew they dont need it anymore. they dont need it any more if they have enough excess and capacity via other means to reach their end of years sales requirements to make their financial reports look pretty..

excess capacity is a factor you keep forgetting

and that there is where the EG comes in. because power companies doing these contracts/ plant sells need to think of the implications of locking out X amount of excess for years.

if they dont have much excess while owning the fossil plants. they need to keep the share holders happy of seeing end-of-year sales reports of X cashflow.
meaning low excess means they have to keep their capacity and keep it running and rack up the prices. to meet targets.

however if they have huge new capacity that is not being used but able to reach their end of year sales targets. then they will happily sell off the redundant old plants or offer excess cheaper

No EG!
You don't have to come up with random examples where you just come up with random numbers and try to make a whole fantasy world about it!

Atlas went in, and bought the whole Greenidge plant for 100 million expanded capacity step but step as they needed more power, they never thought about grid about excess or anything else the plant was expanding according to gear shipments. The same happened when Coinmint bought the Massena smelter,  they looked at the costs, and the capacity and they've bought it and they mine there, they don't care about the mix.
Mara bought a whole coal power plant in Hardin they knew how much they can produce by firing up one by one the turbines, so they ordered gear worth hundreds of millions one year in advance to match their refitting plans.

Stop thinking the guys that are the main cause for this whole "ban" are some random dudes that connect to the grid and pay state average prices and rely on random discounts on excess energy. The mining you think about died years ago!

All the big names in mining in the US are owning their electricity source or have deals for years in advance at specific rates signed.
Nobody went in blindly, bought 800 million worth of gear to rely on the fact that Texas might see more sun and wind in 2027 than now.

its not as simple as one source is X and another source is Y depending on how its created. its also how much spare capacity they have to offer out to new industry.

EG
if one region only has 30GW excess spare and has a regulatory cap-limit of say 12cent as the max they can sell at. they sure as hell are going to sell it at 12cent as they can only earn a max of $3.6m an hour if sold at top amount

where as if they had 230GW excess they can sell for 3cents and still get $6.9m (more then first example)while offering cheap electric
(or any number between, depending on greed of the company(upto $27.6m if at top cap limit price))

Now when you get hydro at 6 cents and coal at 2 cents per kWh!
This is what everything boils down to.

each state of the US. and each country have different plans for transitioning to renewables.

by assessing the strategy of transitioning to renewable. you can probably gauge if a state is going to be new industry friendly or not..

imagine that 4 regions are initially fossil based powered with say 100GW capacity and 70GW local demand each right now. (random numbers i plucked out of my head for easy demo)

1st region may assess that the renewable production requires a new plant capacity of 200GW for future proofing population growth,
where by as soon as the facility is built. they can just switch off the fossil fuel plant the same day. and be 100% renewable. with 130GW spare to offer as excess for new industry to buy up on day one, instead of 30GW excess

2nd region may build the same as 1. but instead of switching off the fossil fuel plants, they start offering renewable excess on the grid market to neighbouring regions along side fossil fuel excess. and slowly reduce the fossil fuel amount over years when they start offering certain utility companies in the area x% where by less demand is there for the fossil contracts.
(some states enjoy keeping coal miners employed so wont want to see a mass exodus of the coal/oil mining industry instantly)
whereby they can have 230GW excess to sell on the markets initially by keeping fossil plants running. meaning alot of potential profit aswell as keeping coal miners employed

3rd region, may want to keep initial build costs low. and so only build a 100GW renewable plant. whereby it keeps the capacity to 100GW by switching off fossil fuel to 0GW on first day of operation, (1:1 swap, no future plan) meaning 70GW demand with only 30GW spare, which they dont want to offer out as excess. but are now 0% carbon

4th region, same as 3 (100GW) whereby at the moment of operating it, they can reduce the fossil fuel to say 35GW fossil fuel(50% carbon/carbon free), meaning if needed.. upto 65GW fossil fuel excess plus 65GW renewable excess.
(changes capacity from 100GW to 200GW meaning excess of upto 130GW if needed
which they can offer out as excess contracts. and slowly bring the fossil fuel number down further if not needed. 
to only be 100GW (if they dont expand more plants over the generations)

each plan has different merits..
EG difference between 3 and 4 is that. 3 transitions to 0% carbon on first day, but it is not planning for the future nor is it netting any extra income to then re-invest for the future. where as 4 is not instantly 0% carbon but is on a budget and gaining extra income while then able to slowly build-out extra capacity over the generations to become both 0% carbon and also future capable, on a budget
.
i say this because with these different plans. requires then allowing or not allowing new industry to take on the excess.

It may not be fair, but I continue to think it's a great chance for the mining industry to reinvent itself to the point the whole CO2 argument becomes obsolete.

The problem is the mindset that Bitcoin is something "useless" which is only "used for speculation" by "greedy" hodlers. This mindset is of course unfair. But a significant part of the population thinks that. (In reality, it's more the shitcoin* community - see the "lunatics" led by Do Kwon, only to illustrate the weirdness of a "decentralized" business with "godlike leaders" -  which is leading to that mindset.)

But once miners demonstrate that they can do their business with green energy (like a lot of NY miners are already doing - those using hydropower 100% should already be compliant with the new law!), this mindset will hopefully begin to erode. On the other hand, if significant parts of the Bitcoin community stay stubborn about their desire to use the cheapest, dirtiest energy for mining, it will take longer.


First, again, it isn't an outright ban. It's a ban on mining with fossil fuel-based energy. I think to have read it only applies to industrial-scale mining, but I may be wrong with that.

The "chain reaction" phenomenon however may become true indeed, but again, I think this is not a bad thing. If increasingly more US states (and later, other countries) restrict fossil fuel-based mining then the cost for miners to be compliant - using "green" energy - will be lower compared to the cost and risk to try to find a state to relocate to, where they could be sure to not be banned to use fossil fuels for a long time.

Even Russia, which has currently no shortage of fossil fuels, is considering restrictions for miners. So the current "find the cheapest energy, even if it's the dirtiest" business model will come to an end.


*as "shitcoin" I don't classify all altcoins, but those that are not solving real problems, are centralized and characterized by this toxic "pump and dump" mentality

people worry that america will do a full ban in all states..
my opinion is this

NY will temp ban mining so they can then offer a monopoly on licences..
TX will be open to mining.
FL & CA will be open to utility of btc

i say this because NY is the monopoly capital of capitalism. they don't like little people competing with the financial elite.

TX is the liberal state that likes to support open business competition. they love their farming and their mining so they will happily invite another (virtual) farming/mining industry

FL & CA are open minded but more about the service/tourist industry. so they would be more about offering services both real world retail store business utility and also technology services like software services

Nothing surprising considering the fact that NY has always been anti-crypto from a long time now. Exchanges need to purchase a specific license to actually operate in that state which is why crypto investors usually hate their government.

Their mining ban would most probably not cause a dent in the cryptocurrency market if you ask me. Miners could just relocate to other places as some of the posters above mentioned.

Personally, I would focus on mining in less popular states in the US for obvious reasons.

It seems to me like you want me to say that it's better for some most states to ban it, but the answer is not that simple. I would prefer that no country dominates the mining business and that the biggest players are scattered all over the world. But I would rather have the US dominate Bitcoin mining than most of the states banning it. I want to highlight the "most" part. If it becomes just NY and a few others, so be it. But if it's most of the US, it's a different situation.

Whether someone likes it or not, the USA is a big player in almost everything you can think of. If they decide to do something that extreme, many of the world's US ass-kissing nations will want to prove themselves and remain on the same page as the USA.   

I think that NY is in some ways a specific part of the US when it comes to Bitcoin, so it is possible that we should not be afraid that other states will follow their example. If Texas benefits from crypto mining, it certainly won't give up because some NY bureaucrats don't have a smarter job than making up laws that don't make much sense.

I would answer this second question with a counter-question - is it better for the US to become dominant in Bitcoin mining or for some (or most) federal states to ban it?


That's right, even if Bitcoin would use 100% clean energy, opponents would find a new excuse to try to undermine it. We can already choose between agendas about Bitcoin as a way to launder money, crime of all kinds, creating waste in the form of electronic equipment, generating online scams ...