Author Topic: two links  (Read 760 times)

rcjordan

  • I'm consulting the authorities on the subject
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16420
  • Debbie says...
    • View Profile

littleman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6558
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #1 on: February 01, 2022, 06:09:42 PM »
It's getting to the point where crypto is more of a wealth storage unit than wealth creation -- like hydrogen is for power.

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9325
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #2 on: February 01, 2022, 07:41:13 PM »
The thing about hydrogen is that no matter how long you store it, it still is worth the same number of joules when you put it in your hydrogen-powered engine.

I can't really wrap my mind around BTC.

It's like gold in that the supply is limited and nobody actually uses it for transactions, just to park value. It's a story we tell about something having value (unlike corn or iron, most of the value of gold is not based on its utility, but simply its story as a scarce and coveted substance). Even though gold is no longer used for coinage or transactions, for some reason it has more or less held its value. From that point of view, I don't see why BTC should be different.

On the other hand, if people change the story and start exiting in large numbers, it seems like it very quickly could enter a death spiral and drop to zero, like stocks in the .com boom (and no, not like tulips - modern research on "Tulip mania" has shown that most of the story we have been handed down about that is more mythology than history).

I see it more like putting money on #27 on the roulette wheel - you know the maximum downside (lose everything you bet), but the potential upside could go very high. For new currencies that you get in early on that is especially true.

Which of those analogies do you think is closest?

Do you have a better one?

Do any of you hold crypto?

If so, which ones and is it just a frivolous distraction (less than 1% of your worth) or an "investment" (more than 1%)?

littleman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6558
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2022, 01:04:07 AM »
>The thing about hydrogen is that no matter how long you store it, it still is worth the same number of joules when you put it in your hydrogen-powered engine.

That's a very good point.  It isn't like you could reverse the cpu cycles used to make the bitcoin and regain the energy consumed in producing them. 

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9325
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2022, 02:45:15 AM »
Funny... reading your reply reminded me of something I heard from a crypto booster. In theory, Bitcoin could actually be a sort of store of energy. It's not that you would run the CPU cycles backwards. It works more like this.

1. You have a solar farm. Part of the time it is producing energy that you cannot sell.
2. You use that energy to run your server farm and mine BTC.
3. You then sell the BTC and that helps finance your solar farm.

So financially, it's sort of like storing the energy in a battery and selling it later. But you store your excess capacity as BTC.

Of course, it strikes me as much much better for society to push that excess power into batteries or a hydrogen plant or a turbine that pumps water uphill or super-heated brine or some system that is an actual store of energy. But it is in an interesting concept for making sure that there is always a market for the excess power.

littleman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6558
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2022, 03:04:31 AM »
That's an interesting concept.  Now, if you used those cycles to purchase carbon offsets...  I guess in theory it could be used to finance carbon sequestering off site. 


Chunkford

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1057
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2022, 11:57:11 AM »
Funny... reading your reply reminded me of something I heard from a crypto booster. In theory, Bitcoin could actually be a sort of store of energy. It's not that you would run the CPU cycles backwards. It works more like this.

1. You have a solar farm. Part of the time it is producing energy that you cannot sell.
2. You use that energy to run your server farm and mine BTC.
3. You then sell the BTC and that helps finance your solar farm.

So financially, it's sort of like storing the energy in a battery and selling it later. But you store your excess capacity as BTC.

Of course, it strikes me as much much better for society to push that excess power into batteries or a hydrogen plant or a turbine that pumps water uphill or super-heated brine or some system that is an actual store of energy. But it is in an interesting concept for making sure that there is always a market for the excess power.

Mining bitcoin makes perfect sense as there's now a real incentive to utilise the wasted energy that's already being created.

https://cleantechnica.com/2013/08/26/us-wastes-61-86-of-its-energy/
"If my answers frighten you then you should cease asking scary questions"

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9325
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #7 on: February 02, 2022, 03:32:20 PM »
But the vast vast majority of that wasted energy is not recoverable using any known technology, whether batteries or BTC mining.

Those numbers refer to the fact that, say, transportation is 21% efficient. That's because of things like the heat that the motor gives off, the energy that goes into moving molecules around due to poor aerodynamics, rolling friction and so forth. There is already incentive to use that energy - for example, more efficient cars would increase the range from a give size battery. But people want large, comfy cars with A/C and subwoofers and that means there's a limit to the aerodynamic efficiency of a car. You can't suddenly harness those losses and turn them into BTC.

It's not like 50% of the electricity generated simply goes away. Yes, of course, some of it disappears in line loss and transmission costs, but BTC mining only addresses that issue if the BTC mine is right next to the generation facility. Even then, you have significant losses in efficiency due to transformer loss, CPUs heating up, and so forth.

Anyway, the point is that if you use grid power to mine BTC, you don't suddenly efficiently start using that lost energy, you compound those losses by sending more energy inefficiently down the grid.

Now there are times in California and Germany when renewables produce enough power that there is more juice in the grid than the system can use and they have to export that power to other states/countries. That might be a case were you could BTC mine "for free" (and that's the situation I was thinking of), but I still think that it would be way better to store that energy as energy, not as a hash, and then use that energy later that evening when all the solar goes quiet, instead of holding it until your old age and using it to retire on.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2022, 03:36:40 PM by ergophobe »

ergophobe

  • Inner Core
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9325
    • View Profile
Re: two links
« Reply #8 on: February 02, 2022, 06:41:21 PM »
I thought of a better example while puttering around.

If you look at that chart, about 36% of home residential energy is wasted. If I could capture the heat escaping from my house in the winter and convert it to run BTC mining rigs, that seems much less efficient overall than upgrading my insulation and just not losing that heat in the first place. Same with lightbulbs. I could perhaps capture the heat off incandescent bulbs and convert it to run a mining rig, but wouldn't I be better off just switching to LEDs?