China Region with cheapest electricity bans crypto mining

Advertise on BHW
Brickbat1 said:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-rises-china-region-declares-095643753.html
As more and more states take a stand against power hungry mining, what do you think the effect on bitcoin value will be? Less miners, more inefficient blockchain higher fees (already crazy high)...your thoughts?
Click to expand...
Less miners does not mean a more inefficient blockchain nor does it cause high fees. Less miners = lower security that is all. The transaction throughput doesnt change, only the mining difficulty.

The region mentioned in that link is Inner Mongolia, the worst area for coal usage so in the end its probably a good thing.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...-led-recovery-defying-beijings-climate-goals/
 
It's like the gods are reading our posts and immediately acted on @Dark Sky 's cries.

Now the miners can move to clean energy sources in developed countries.
 
bartosimpsonio said:
Less miners equals more expensive coins right? Less coins getting in?
Click to expand...

Nope, each puzzle takes around 10 minutes to solve, regardless of miners or hardware strength. If more miners then the algorithm makes it harder so the puzzle is still solved in 10 minutes :P Less miners just means more profit for current miners but less energy used :P
 
Dark Sky said:
Nope, each puzzle takes around 10 minutes to solve, regardless of miners or hardware strength. If more miners then the algorithm makes it harder so the puzzle is still solved in 10 minutes :p Less miners just means more profit for current miners but less energy used :p
Click to expand...

LOL I have no idea how this can work. So....less miners is good but more miners is good too LOL. Fuck me.
 
bartosimpsonio said:
LOL I have no idea how this can work. So....less miners is good but more miners is good too LOL. Fuck me.
Click to expand...

Less miners = Better for environment
More miners = Better for the security of bitcoins network

So in essence, assuming fossil fuels exist and being used which they are, to increase the security of the bitcoin network, you need to actively destroy the environment. The ironic part is, the network is already secure enough. So you don't actually need more miners, but the nature of bitcoin is designed to keep encouraging more and more miners which hurts the environment more and more (Until fossil fuels are no more)

I don't think the creator of bitcoin anticipated it to become this big.
 
Dark Sky said:
Less miners = Better for environment
More miners = Better for the security of bitcoins network

So in essence, assuming fossil fuels exist and being used which they are, to increase the security of the bitcoin network, you need to actively destroy the environment. The ironic part is, the network is already secure enough. So you don't actually need more miners, but the nature of bitcoin is designed to keep encouraging more and more miners which hurts the environment more and more (Until fossil fuels are no more)

I don't think the creator of bitcoin anticipated it to become this big.
Click to expand...

Holy shit Dark Sky are you some kind of crypto magician or something?

That's way over my head mate. Thanks for the cool info.
 
Dark Sky said:
Less miners = Better for environment
More miners = Better for the security of bitcoins network

So in essence, assuming fossil fuels exist and being used which they are, to increase the security of the bitcoin network, you need to actively destroy the environment. The ironic part is, the network is already secure enough. So you don't actually need more miners, but the nature of bitcoin is designed to keep encouraging more and more miners which hurts the environment more and more (Until fossil fuels are no more)

I don't think the creator of bitcoin anticipated it to become this big.
Click to expand...

Yes I doubt Satoshi Nakamoto ever dreamt it will get this big. I suspect the guy may be dead, meaning his bitcoins ,milions of them I think, are lost too.

Anyway can the reduction of miners not get to the point where attacking the network to steal btc becomes a viable proposition for rogue organisations with close to or possibly quantum computing?
 
onlinemarketer12 said:
He will do all he can do boost crypto as he has invested a lot.
Click to expand...

But didn't Tesla buy? Or did HE buy? If Tesla did then I don't think they are allowed to keep pumping the asset, since corporations are regulated. Donno, just guessin here.
 
It was Tesla, the company, that bought bitcoin. Musk wasn't personally even very big on crypto assets, so Tesla getting into bitcoin was huge. Essentially, all the owners of Tesla had to gather around a table and agree to do it. It wasn't a crazy, thoughtless act of a bold CEO. That's why it was a big thing, and why it can potentially serve as a blueprint for other large companies to follow.

Man, I'm really bullish on BTC.
 
Advertise on BHW
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sign up now!

Main Menu

Home Main Forum List Black Hat SEO White Hat SEO BHW Newbie Guide Blogging Black Hat Tools Social Media Downloads

Marketplace

Account Selling Content / Copywriting EBooks / Methods Hosting Misc Proxies For Sale SEO - Link building SEO - Packages Social Media Social Media - Panels Web Design More

Making Money

Affiliate Programs Hire a Freelancer IM Journeys Making Money Pay Per Click Site Flipping Want to Buy

BlackHat World

Dispute Resolution Forum Suggestions & Feedback Introductions Lounge
Back
Top