many asic manufacturers are no longer building asics and putting them into cardboard boxes and then into shipping containers, to deliver out where the workers at the mining farm warehouse have to take delivery, open the container, pull out all the boxes, unbox them, unwrap the bubblewrap and polystyrene and then plug them in one by one.. trying to not trip over the cabling
instead.. asic manufacturers build the asics and power units and have them racked up and cabled into the shipping container(alreadt fitted and cabled ready). where all the workers at the delivery destination have to do is connect a master circuit electric cable to the shipping container power circuit unit , and hey presto. its mining. right from within the shipping container.
this advantage saves a days worth of labour and also makes it easy to re-locate at a moments notice if needs be.
just unplug the shipping container and lift it back onto a low bed truck and off it goes.
its becoming easier to set up and relocate these days. so location is not a problem
(unlike businesses like amazon warehouses where it would take weeks to take boxes off shelves and put all the stock into trucks in one go.)
Topic: Blockchain Association - Thoughts over NY's mining ban - page 2. (Read 255 times)
Since few weeks we are constantly hearing about the news regarding NY and its mining ban agenda. However, lately Blockchain association has portrayed their thoughts on how negatively this will affect the NY which is technological state and web3 capital.
i think this threat on bitcoin mining ban is overwhelming enough to reach a stop, there have been circulations all over that bitcoin mining pose a danger to the electric power supply rate and it carbon emission but what they needed to understand in New York is that even this was ban it cannot affect the global hashrate of bitcoin mining on a tangible reason because NY isn't the only center for such but will only make move to relocate all miners from the region to a more greener pastures just as in the case of China at worst.
there is literally trace proof that if bitcoin mining is stopped then it will impact lesser carbon emission.
i think there's a distinct difference between the effect and the rate of the carbon emission from bitcoin mining and natural resources mining which we all believed to be clear enough to see, i think there's much in demand than ordinary what is been porported.
It's a good point the Association makes that the ban will motivate miners to move to another state with better regulations (although the notes in the thread about expensive NY electricity and hydroelectric power deserve attention as well). Also, if they care about the ecology, why the moratorium is not on any new carbon-based businesses in general? How is it fair that carbon emmissions are free to grow and businesses are free to profit, as long as it's not crypto mining? This is the first thing that comes to my mind when hearing about such restrictive legislation, and yet it doesn't seem that this argument is used much. Why not?
several times I found about posting a bitcoin mining ban in several countries on the grounds of an energy crisis and not being environmentally friendly, this is because bitcoin has a very rapid value and growth of course if not: maybe this will never happen, but we also can't close keep an eye on the fact by throwing the leftover pizza in the trash because bitcoin mining will also be a disaster in the future if it is not accompanied by cleaner and environmentally friendly methods to utilize environmentally friendly energy, it must be accompanied by the role of the government indirectly providing easy access to obtain all their needs and not excluding bitcoin as a contributor to global warming because many sources of electrical energy are also being drained by the industry which needs to also be looked at and reviewed by the government
I don't think this is just a matter of reallocating your mining company and setting up shop in a different state. If it comes to the point where the state of New York bans the mining of Bitcoin, I am afraid it will create a chain reaction where other states will follow. I don't even want to think about the consequences and what could happen if the majority of US states ban Bitcoin mining in a few years from now.
It's sad that the focus is always on outright bans. Why not incentivize the mining industry to use affordable and clean energy instead? It's a rhetorical question because the problem is not in Bitcoin miners using fossil fuels, the problem is Bitcoin.
It's sad that the focus is always on outright bans. Why not incentivize the mining industry to use affordable and clean energy instead? It's a rhetorical question because the problem is not in Bitcoin miners using fossil fuels, the problem is Bitcoin.
Ah that is good point. Though in rhetorical sense I believe it’s perfectly asked since bitcoin miners would do it way happily. We have already seen examples of how big mining corporations had their set up in country like Greenland with hydropower as main source of energy. Both Geo location and greener energy is being used and the companies are really really mega. The income definitely profitable for company and hydropower unit after they get the bills paid.
In other words this only sounds like dirty politics where NY do not want miners in the vicinity at all.
This so called "mining ban" isn't a real mining ban. It's more like setting up double standards for the different kinds of businesses.
Exactly. With NY state being "the largest producer of hydroelectric power east of the Rocky Mountains" one would expect the NY miners use cleaner electricity than many others. So I really don't know what basis that (ugly) political decision has...
Oh well, the miners will easily find other, more friendly places, although it'll cost them the relocation and the time they won't be hashing...
This so called "mining ban" isn't a real mining ban. It's more like setting up double standards for the different kinds of businesses.
Exactly. With NY state being "the largest producer of hydroelectric power east of the Rocky Mountains" one would expect the NY miners use cleaner electricity than many others. So I really don't know what basis that (ugly) political decision has...
Oh well, the miners will easily find other, more friendly places, although it'll cost them the relocation and the time they won't be hashing...
I don't think this is just a matter of reallocating your mining company and setting up shop in a different state. If it comes to the point where the state of New York bans the mining of Bitcoin, I am afraid it will create a chain reaction where other states will follow. I don't even want to think about the consequences and what could happen if the majority of US states ban Bitcoin mining in a few years from now.
It's sad that the focus is always on outright bans. Why not incentivize the mining industry to use affordable and clean energy instead? It's a rhetorical question because the problem is not in Bitcoin miners using fossil fuels, the problem is Bitcoin.
It's sad that the focus is always on outright bans. Why not incentivize the mining industry to use affordable and clean energy instead? It's a rhetorical question because the problem is not in Bitcoin miners using fossil fuels, the problem is Bitcoin.
what you will see is that it creates a monopoly.
small hobby miners wanting to set up residentially using random power from random power generation plants(residential circuit of national grid) wont be able to. and most hobby miners wont want to move to locations of 100% renewable.
also the electric cost in NY is not the best unless you are on "industrial" rate contracts.
so this is pretty much ruling out any small farms mining in NY
however larger industrial mining farms if positioned right and using the right lobbying could get a licence.
..
this is said because NY done this before.. outlawed bitcoin exchanging and then offered a licence to allow exchanging a short time later.(research: bit licence)
in many countries if something is free to do with no laws, you cant just throw a licence requirement at it. you first have to prohibit it, to then bring it into your jurisdiction to then put terms of use on it where you will permit use of it.
small hobby miners wanting to set up residentially using random power from random power generation plants(residential circuit of national grid) wont be able to. and most hobby miners wont want to move to locations of 100% renewable.
also the electric cost in NY is not the best unless you are on "industrial" rate contracts.
so this is pretty much ruling out any small farms mining in NY
however larger industrial mining farms if positioned right and using the right lobbying could get a licence.
..
this is said because NY done this before.. outlawed bitcoin exchanging and then offered a licence to allow exchanging a short time later.(research: bit licence)
in many countries if something is free to do with no laws, you cant just throw a licence requirement at it. you first have to prohibit it, to then bring it into your jurisdiction to then put terms of use on it where you will permit use of it.
This so called "mining ban" isn't a real mining ban. It's more like setting up double standards for the different kinds of businesses.
AFAIK, this is a regulation, that forbids the crypto miners to use electricity, that is produced via burning coal. The cryptocurrency miners in the state of New York are allowed to mine crypto, as long as the electricity they are using is "green". This isn't fair, because many industries aren't required by the law to use green energy. I'm "still waiting for the New York administration to say this to the "brick and mortar" businesses-"Use green energy or we will shut you down." Let's see what happens then. Protests all over the state. Unfortunately, the crypto miners cannot protect themselves from this unfair treatment. The only way for them to protest is to run away from NY and go somewhere else.
AFAIK, this is a regulation, that forbids the crypto miners to use electricity, that is produced via burning coal. The cryptocurrency miners in the state of New York are allowed to mine crypto, as long as the electricity they are using is "green". This isn't fair, because many industries aren't required by the law to use green energy. I'm "still waiting for the New York administration to say this to the "brick and mortar" businesses-"Use green energy or we will shut you down." Let's see what happens then. Protests all over the state. Unfortunately, the crypto miners cannot protect themselves from this unfair treatment. The only way for them to protest is to run away from NY and go somewhere else.
Are there really bitcoin miners operating in New York? Because from what I gathered the electricity cost in NY is very expensive and is already about 4 times higher than the average electricity price that most miners use to make their efforts profitable.
Since few weeks we are constantly hearing about the news regarding NY and its mining ban agenda. However, lately Blockchain association has portrayed their thoughts on how negatively this will affect the NY which is technological state and web3 capital.
Blockchain association mentions bitcoin mining and it's carbon emission are far fetched topic and there is literally trace proof that if bitcoin mining is stopped then it will impact lesser carbon emission.
They added, this will only put NY in bad corner because miners will simply move towards the next state where they have favourable rules and regulations in association with mining and usage of electrical energy.
This does sound favourable to miners but it's up to mayors and Juri's on how to act and take the future actions.
Source: Blockchain Association argues New York mining ban won’t ‘reduce carbon emissions’
Blockchain association mentions bitcoin mining and it's carbon emission are far fetched topic and there is literally trace proof that if bitcoin mining is stopped then it will impact lesser carbon emission.
They added, this will only put NY in bad corner because miners will simply move towards the next state where they have favourable rules and regulations in association with mining and usage of electrical energy.
This does sound favourable to miners but it's up to mayors and Juri's on how to act and take the future actions.
Quote
In the wake of the New York State Senate passing a bill that imposes a two-year moratorium on any new carbon-based fuel-powered proof-of-work (PoW) cryptocurrency mining projects in the U.S. state, the ban has received a great deal of criticism from all over the industry.
One of the sources of criticism is from the Blockchain Association, whose Executive Vice President Jake Chervinsky listed and explained in detail all the disadvantages of the passed bill for the crypto industry and economy in the state of New York in a Twitter thread published on June 5.
The Blockchain Association is a Washington-based trade association representing companies and other organizations in the crypto industry with a mission to change the public policy toward crypto in the U.S.
Indeed, the first argument that Chervinsky presented was that, despite what “the anti-Bitcoin wing of the NY political establishment” claims, the mining ban “will not help reduce carbon emissions by a single ounce.” He added, “at best, it has zero impact on emissions.”
Pushing miners elsewhere
As a matter of fact, according to the Blockchain Association EVP, the mining ban will have a net negative effect, as:
“All it does is push miners to build in other places where NY has no influence over them.”
In his words, miners will simply move to other places outside the state with fewer or no environmental regulations.
According to Chervinsky, the banning policy is dishonest and lacks detailed analysis:
“Good policy requires reality-based thinking: honest analysis of costs & benefits, of opportunities & risks, of first- & second-order effects. The NY mining ban does none of that. It’s a moral victory for a few, detached from reality.”
However, he doesn’t lose hope, saying that “NY had (& still has) a chance to lead the way on crypto broadly & Bitcoin mining specifically,” explaining that incentives are more productive than bans:
“Good policy here would mean both carrots & sticks: at minimum, an incentive for miners to shift toward renewables is an easy win.”
He also called upon Governor Kathy Hochul to veto the bill “for the sake of New York” and “at a time when keeping crypto in the US is a matter of national importance.”
Finally, Chervinsky urges the state of California to learn from New York’s mistakes if it wishes to remain the technology capital of the world and the home of Web3 – at a time when it “is starting to analyze these issues under the process established by Gavin Newsom’s executive order.”
One of the sources of criticism is from the Blockchain Association, whose Executive Vice President Jake Chervinsky listed and explained in detail all the disadvantages of the passed bill for the crypto industry and economy in the state of New York in a Twitter thread published on June 5.
The Blockchain Association is a Washington-based trade association representing companies and other organizations in the crypto industry with a mission to change the public policy toward crypto in the U.S.
Indeed, the first argument that Chervinsky presented was that, despite what “the anti-Bitcoin wing of the NY political establishment” claims, the mining ban “will not help reduce carbon emissions by a single ounce.” He added, “at best, it has zero impact on emissions.”
Pushing miners elsewhere
As a matter of fact, according to the Blockchain Association EVP, the mining ban will have a net negative effect, as:
“All it does is push miners to build in other places where NY has no influence over them.”
In his words, miners will simply move to other places outside the state with fewer or no environmental regulations.
According to Chervinsky, the banning policy is dishonest and lacks detailed analysis:
“Good policy requires reality-based thinking: honest analysis of costs & benefits, of opportunities & risks, of first- & second-order effects. The NY mining ban does none of that. It’s a moral victory for a few, detached from reality.”
However, he doesn’t lose hope, saying that “NY had (& still has) a chance to lead the way on crypto broadly & Bitcoin mining specifically,” explaining that incentives are more productive than bans:
“Good policy here would mean both carrots & sticks: at minimum, an incentive for miners to shift toward renewables is an easy win.”
He also called upon Governor Kathy Hochul to veto the bill “for the sake of New York” and “at a time when keeping crypto in the US is a matter of national importance.”
Finally, Chervinsky urges the state of California to learn from New York’s mistakes if it wishes to remain the technology capital of the world and the home of Web3 – at a time when it “is starting to analyze these issues under the process established by Gavin Newsom’s executive order.”
Source: Blockchain Association argues New York mining ban won’t ‘reduce carbon emissions’
Jump to: