Bitcoin miners are losing on every coin produced as difficulty drops | Hacker News Reader

Bitcoin miners are losing on every coin produced as difficulty drops

coindesk.com

244 pointsPaulHoule229 comments

The headline is dramatic but this is literally how bitcoin is designed to work. Miners leave, difficulty drops, costs go down, mining becomes profitable again. The interesting part isn’t the loss per coin, it’s how long the lag between unprofitable mining and difficulty adjustment keeps forced selling pressure on the market.

This only works when the difficult drop rates are below miner leaving rates.

Which in normal times, are something taken for granted, but once it does happen, the edge case collapse the entire system.

edit: the earlier language is not exact, the scenario is an exponential drop of value that results in exponential drop in miner willing to mine until this discrepancy can be resolved. i.e. the system is not protected against extreme volatility (e.g. -99% over a block cycle)

I don't think you know what you're talking about. If the difficulty lowers at a lower rate than miners leaving then the difficulty rate will stop dropping.

Yup

The problem with BTC going down is that it's a double whammy of not only BTC going down but also the cost of its shovels going up

Before: BTC pays $100k but a shovel costs $300

Now: BTC pays $70k but a shovel costs $$??

Bitcoin asked the right questions but came back with the wrong answers

What's a shovel?

They're using the analogy of mining for gold. the cost of a shovel/pitchfork goes up when the price of gold goes down - which is a double whammy

you didn't answer the question. A shovel in this case is the equipment + energy needed to mine (GPU's etc.)

Which is pretty much obvious to anyone who has heard of bitcoin in the year of our lord 2026

Especially since the "sell shovels during a gold rush" has been used to apply to nVidia

But the person upstream hasn’t. It’s not obvious to them. Which is why a good answer has to include the detail.

> below miner leaving rates.

What does this mean, sorry?

> the edge case collapse the entire system.

If you mean that if it reaches a certain point, the entire system will collapse, it means you don't understand the difficulty adjustment. If it's too expensive to mine, then some miners leave, which makes blocktimes be longer, but not to worry because the consequence of that it just that difficulty will go down, which means that you need less hashrate to mine (and maybe some of those miners that leave will come back because it is profitable again for them). This means that it is essentially impossible for all miners to leave at the same time; some of them stay even if at a loss, and some of them are just hobbyists that can already feed their miners with solar power (so there's really no loss for them in leaving them connected).

This makes sense but what if nobody get the system to the next checkpoint where the difficulty is allowed to go down?

No but if more miners leave then dofficulty with drop faster right? Its modelling supply and demand curves which are a stable equilibrium in these circumstances

Might be wrong about what Aperocky is alluding to but there is an entirely theoretical edge case. The time to the next difficulty adjustment is based on the current speed of mining, and the possible change in difficulty is capped. With enough minors leaving it will drop the speed of mining/network speed/ and push out the expected time to the next difficulty adjustment. I can't think of any realistic way this can occur given the miners that stay will (personally) be producing blocks as often, the increase in time being balanced out by being a larger proportionate of the mining rate. They don't care if they get 1% of the blocks, which average about 20 mins per block or 5% of the blocks that average 100mins per block.

Difficulty only adjusts every 2016 blocks. If the system gets out of whack enough it could slow down to a crawl for an extended period of time.

In practice it’s not much of an issue because bitcoin is not use for commerce but it’s a store of value and it some of the trades are not even on chain.

> but once it does happen, the edge case collapse the entire system.

Which is when exactly, and how likely is that to happen? It hasn't happened yet in ~14 years, but I guess "never say never". There is a lot of money saying it won't happen very soon though.

It's also a side-effect of apocollapse of bitcoin itself; it becomes worth so little that nobody is mining means nobody will mine to a new block difficulty; but the collapse already occurred.

If it happens it'll probably the result of a positive feedback loop forming: miners leaving slowing down transactions and affecting utility/faith in the system resulting in people selling, meaning more miners leaving, etc. That said, I don't know of any clear examples of this happening to any other proof of work coins: I think in general other parts of a cryptocurrency tend to fail first, it requires a particularly fast death for this kind of thing to happen.

What does “leave” in this context mean?

"stop"

(Obviously the equipment doesn't go away. You can start it again. But if you can't make a buck doing something, you won't do it.)

But I mean, their bitcoins are not going away, their wallets are still there, their bitcoins also right? I thought bitcoin mining was proportionally hard to the number of already mined bitcoins, not the number of people mining?

I probably should look this up in wikipedia first.

It's a common misunderstanding that mining just gets harder and harder as time goes by and more coins are minted. It's often misreported that way. But in fact, the difficulty is dynamic and adjusts itself to keep minting at the predetermined rate regardless of the number of participants. Mining has gotten harder on long timelines, but only because more computing power has been added.

Doesn’t that contradict the Wikipedia article?

> Miners who successfully create a new block with a valid nonce can collect transaction fees from the included transactions and a fixed reward in bitcoins. To claim this reward, a special transaction called a coinbase is included in the block, with the miner as the payee. All bitcoins in existence have been created through this type of transaction. This reward is halved every 210,000 blocks until ₿21 million have been issued in total, which is expected to occur around the year 2140. Afterward, miners will only earn from transaction fees.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin (emphasis mine)

Difficulty and block rewards are separate things. There is no contradiction here.

Block reward stays constant, amount of work required (on average) to get a block reward is dynamic in order to make it so that total number of rewards given out over a length of time stays roughly constant.

So if too many block rewards are claimed in a given time frame, difficulty is increased to slow things down. If not enough are claimed then difficulty decreases to make it easier to get one.

The reward of each block will only get smaller. But the power needs to mine a block is dynamic.

Sure, but that’s not what miners care about. The power needed to get a given amount of money doubles whenever the reward is halved.

I honestly don't know which part of "the difficulty being dynamic" is this hard to understand.

> The power needed to get a given amount of money doubles whenever the reward is halved.

Yes, by that moment it does.

And some miners still stop mining if mining became too unprofitable.

And the difficulty will decrease because less miners are mining.

And the power needed to get a given amount of bitcoin will decrease. (Not necessarily to the level before halving, ofc)

Or your comment was about this part of the grandparent comment:

> keep minting at the predetermined rate

If so, I think you misunderstood what they were trying to say (or their wording was misleading). It's a predetermined rate. Not a constant rate. It's predetermined to be halved at (roughly) certain moments. Halving happens about every four years, and pouring more power into mining won't make it happen significantly sooner or later. That's what they were trying to say.

Turn off their mining rigs.

Or use it for other coins.

They all correlate with bitcoin. Same problem probably applies.

No. all coins do not have equal mining participation.

I think the comment you replied to meant that the other coins are also dropping in price, when bitcoin drops.

Yes, but the coins with less participation require less power to compete. To make a market argument that there is an equilibrium of players across all coins, implies there are actual individuals finding opportunities and switching coins when they get out of sync.

Miners already switch between coins, yes.

And their reason for switching coins is?…

As you can see on https://www.f2pool.com/coins other coins using SHA256 as PoW algorithm only amount to about 1% of Bitcoin's daily dollars of Pow Produced, so if any nontrivial amount of hash moves there, then those will soon become unprofitable too.

Stop mining.

...and sitting on a lot of ASICs which are soon worthless....

If "difficulty drops, costs go down" so ought the price? Isn't that basic economics? Or are they chasing the "phase difference", lag, between supply demand?

The mining reward isn't a direct transaction that has a price.

Competing for it is more of a game that has a cost to participate in.

I am not certain; but, costs do not have a causative relationship to prices. Prices only go down because as the cost of production goes down, supply increases. It is a correlative relationship.

Bitcoin's supply won't increase as costs go down, unlike other assets.

> costs do not have a causative relationship to prices. Prices only go down because as the cost of production goes down, supply increases.

Um. That's a causative relationship, even if it's mediated, but it's still causative. And generally, the relationship is even more direct: the suppliers are quite reluctant to sell at the price lower than their costs unless they expect the prices go up soon enough™, so the lower boundaries for the prices exist.

Price isn't affected by mining difficulty, only the other direction.

It's the reverse.

As price per coin goes up, more folks will find mining profitable and invest in mining operations. Difficulty goes up until it's no longer attractive for anyone to add to the global hash rate.

As price per coin goes down, less of those operations are profitable and fewer new people will find it to be a good investment. Difficulty stays the same or goes down. Due to capital expenses, difficulty is more sticky in the downward direction than upwards.

There is of course some marginal price action in between where there is in theory selling pressure from miners when it's less profitable to mine (to fund operational expenses and debt), but I don't think it's super material to the overall market volume these days.

It's both. You're talking about the demand curve. The other thing is the supply curve.

A perpetual boom bust cycle? Sounds healthy.

Regression to the mean. The alternative is no adjustment at all.

It is a negative feedback loop, so yes, it makes systems stable.

Technically you could have negative feedback result in a system that diverges further and further from some baseline, until it eventually collapses. This is usually because the gain of the feedback signal is too high.

Counterintuitively that’s the definition of healthy in economics.

If you don’t have busts, at some point your system will abruptly/violently cease to exist.

This is exactly how real world economy is (ideally) meant to work.

It sounds very similar to things like oil production, gold mining, and even farming. When the price is high, everyone wants in on the action. As supply explodes, the prices drop. Once prices get low enough, the costs to pump the next barrel of oil, find the next ounce of gold, or harvest the next acre of a certain crop; exceed the reward. When that happens, wells are shut down, mining operations suspended, and different crops planted. The cycle begins again.

There's a soft failure-mode for bitcoin where due to the alternating difficulty adjustment, you could end up with people only mining every other 2016-block adjustment.

Let's call this cycle A and cycle B.

If A is too hard, miners drop out, cycle B gets easier, miners flood back, cycle A gets harder.

This results in the hard cycle getting longer and the easy cycle getting shorter.

This isn't completely critical as there is I believe a small damping effect, so it isn't completely lethal to bitcoin, but a key thing about bitcoin mining is that whether other people are mining or not doesn't actually affect your own profitiability.

Other people dropping out doesn't actually mean you get more bitcoins per hour/watt, it only affects the next difficulty adjustment as a secondary effect.

The damping effect is that part of your costs are the hardware, space, depreciation etc. leaving that stuff idle costs money - so it makes sense to mine in the less profitable periods too.

Yes though AFAIK electricity is a large %

The larger it is, the less likely your mining set up is actually all that solid.

The best miners are doing so with near free electricity, either with things like subsidized solar, or energy acquired from things like nat gas that'd otherwise get flared, or hydroelectric power that exists too far from civilization to have a demand otherwise.

If your miner is plugged into the grid, you're probably doing it wrong.

Crypto-miners are switching to AI token farming when bitcoin is low. They have compute that's both installed and powered, so why not do what pays better?

For bitcoin at least, you need totally different silicon.

I guess you could share the power supply and cooling infra, but I am dubious the savings are enough to have half your silicon idle all the time.

What the hell is AI token farming?

I think they mean serving inference workloads

How does that work? Isn't most bitcoin mining done on custom ASICs? I didn't think that the ASIC could be repurposed for inference.

The biggest cost is the power which is often on multi year contracts. The hardware is comparatively cheap

That's wildly inaccurate. The cost in enormous both on the inference side and the mining side and has short lifetimes if you want SOTA.

Training ASICs (like Google’s TPUs) can generally run inference too, since inference is a subset of training computations. TPUs are widely used for both.

Mining ASICs (Bitcoin, etc.) cannot be repurposed…they’re hardwired for a single hash algorithm and lack matrix math needed for neural networks.

That depends on each miner's energy costs, so long as (variable cost of energy - revenue from coins) < fixed costs. It's still negative cashflow either way, but the monthly losses have to be weighed against the cost of going insolvent and losing the hardware.

I think you're right, it's counterintuitive but less competition means less rewards to share for those who keep mining. Though transaction fees / hour shouldn't decrease, maybe your share of that is bigger.

I thought the rate of mining was tied to the maximum transaction rate the network can support?

It's the other way around, and there's no obligation to even carry transactions when mining, although it's incentivised through fees.

Your mining rate is simply your hash rate vs the hash difficulty.

Conceptually, it's analoglous to rolling random numbers in (0,1) until you get to a number smaller than 1/X, where X is large.

How long it takes you to do that, isn't dependent on how many other people are also trying to do that, if you get 1 hit per hour, then lots of other people getting hits doesn't actually stop you getting your 1 hit per hour.

Now, that's not quite the whole truth, as there's a small amount of time needed for propagation of the previous chain, but with an average hit globally of ~10 minutes, that's not actually a big factor.

What could happen to incentivise people is increased fees if blocks get less common due to dropped miners, there'd be more competition to get into blocks if they start filling up.

That combined with the fixed costs such as depreciation as othes mentioned, keeps the risk of this form of failure to a minimum.

The difficulty can only adjust by a factor of 4 which also limits the incentive change. You'd need more than 90% of miners to disappear to start seeing actual problems.

Satoshi thought of everything, man.

Clearly not because they created wallets that they can’t even use without unmasking their pseudonym. Seems pretty stupid to me.

Doesn't this assume that traceability of all transactions wasn't a goal?

Except for the inevitable and obvious fact that proof-of-work creates a self-sustaining primary incentive for energy waste more pernicious than has ever been seen in any other financial or commercial enterprise, obliterating any hope of having energy that is too cheap to meter.

Now compare it to the annual energy use for the creation/printing of money and funding of infinite wars due to the Federal Reserve having the ability to print money out of thin air at the cost of future generations.

>Federal Reserve having the ability to print money out of thin air at the cost of future generations.

As a non-American, it's hard not to notice that it's not future generations. It's everyone using dollars.

And since your country will be invaded if you try not using dollars to trade oil, and everyone needs oil (transport, food/fertilizers, medicine synthesis), then it's literally the whole world paying.

Which incentives USA to print money, because they only shoulder a small part of that burden.

Isn't this kind of the opposite?

Mining Bitcoin requires both hardware and electricity, and the cheapest electricity is solar. There isn't any severe scarcity of the raw materials to make solar panels, or of sunlight, so Bitcoin miners can buy as many solar panels as they want and it would only increase the economies of scale for producing them for other purposes too.

Solar has inconsistent output. There is none at night and it varies based on weather during the day. Mining hardware wants a fixed constant amount of power. The logical thing for miners to do is to somewhat overbuild the amount of generation they need and then sell any surplus to the grid, and sell to the grid during the day and buy it back at night. The same incentives hold if the miners and the generators are two different parties, and the result is to increase the amount of generation capacity by more than the amount of consumption and have "too cheap to meter" during periods of above-average generation. (You were never going to get "too cheap to meter" during periods when generation is low and demand is high.) And even during short periods when demand significantly outstrips supply, then their incentive is to stop operating those few days out of the year because the spot price of electricity makes mining unprofitable then, which allows the generation capacity installed to do mining be used to support the rest of the grid and inhibits the price of electricity from rising above the point where mining becomes unprofitable even for people who already have mining hardware. It's basically a buffer that buys electricity when it's cheap and sells when it's expensive.

Bitcoin has a volatile price. When the price is high, miners buy hardware and increase or pay someone else to increase generation capacity. When the price declines, the mining hardware becomes idle but the power generation capacity still generates fungible electricity that can be used for any other purpose. The result is that miners pay to install a lot of generation capacity during the boom, and have the incentive to prioritize investing in more generation rather than newer/more efficient mining hardware because it's the thing that's still worth something if the price declines, and that generation capacity then gets offloaded into the grid during the bust, with the result that grid prices go up some during the boom and down by even more during the bust. By the next boom some of the generation added last time has already been sold to non-miners or locked into long-term contracts so now they're back to adding new capacity again.

"Incentive to fund increases in generation capacity but then not use all of it" has what effect on average prices?

Or we could use all that "free solar energy" to benefit humanity through a million other more useful endeavors. Such as developing and deploying batteries.

One thing we do not lack is demand for more energy.

> Or we could use all that "free solar energy" to benefit humanity through a million other more useful endeavors.

Please tell me where I can get unlimited solar panels for free. I'll rent a truck and be there straight away.

> One thing we do not lack is demand for more energy.

Market demand is the willingness and ability to pay money for something. If the demand was actually unlimited then why isn't there either a Dyson sphere around the sun already or a 0% unemployment rate from everyone having a job building one?

You're making a lot of highly idealized assumptions that don't hold true in reality.

Most significantly that the increased demand due to mining will result in grid operators investing in proportional new capacity to offset it over a reasonable time scale. Instead of just driving up prices due to basic supply/demand.

Also that miners are only consuming electricity when renewables dominate the mix. Otherwise they're responsible for more CO2 emissions to do something useless.

Plus in markets like Texas, miners also manage to get subsidies intended for actually useful customers like factories to go offline at peak times. So ratepayers are essentially paying protection money so they won't over stress the grid by performing their useless work.

In a world where bitcoin miners had to install new solar capacity to entirely offset their peak usage and sell back to the grid any excess then sure, seems like that wouldn't be a big societal net negative like it is right now.

> Most significantly that the increased demand due to mining will result in grid operators investing in proportional new capacity to offset it over a reasonable time scale. Instead of just driving up prices due to basic supply/demand.

If anyone can buy a piece of land, plop down some solar panels and start selling power to the grid, that's what happens whenever the market price gets higher than the cost of doing it. If they can't, that seems more like a regulatory problem than a Bitcoin problem.

> Also that miners are only consuming electricity when renewables dominate the mix. Otherwise they're responsible for more CO2 emissions to do something useless.

~100% of new net generation capacity in the US is renewables and that seems poised to continue for economic reasons. Adding some new nuclear could also make sense in an amenable political environment (some new data centers are trying to build it) but that also doesn't emit CO2.

> Plus in markets like Texas, miners also manage to get subsidies intended for actually useful customers like factories to go offline at peak times. So ratepayers are essentially paying protection money so they won't over stress the grid by performing their useless work.

Those "subsidies" (really discounts) exist because the cost of supplying power 100% of the time is dramatically higher than the cost of supplying it 99% of the time, so you pay less if you only need it 99% of the time and the power company gets to choose when.

Having more customers that can do that allows the grid to supply power to everyone for less money. You install some solar panels whose average generation can support a Bitcoin mining operation + X number of homes. When the output is half of normal for an extended period of time, the Bitcoin mining operation cuts out and "half of normal output from twice as many panels" can power all of the homes. Without the mining operation buying half the typical output there would only be half as many panels to begin with and then you would need something like natural gas peaker plants to power the other half of the homes when solar generation is low, which both costs more and emits more CO2.

> In a world where bitcoin miners had to install new solar capacity to entirely offset their peak usage and sell back to the grid any excess then sure, seems like that wouldn't be a big societal net negative like it is right now.

If you care about CO2 then you do a carbon tax or similar (and then refund all the money to the public as checks so it doesn't damage the economy), at which point that's exactly what happens, only it happens for everybody and not just Bitcoin miners, which is what you want anyway.

The first argument really really does not make sense.

You can also increase economies of scale by building out solar farms, and using them for something useful, instead of wasting it on guessing random hashes.

Saying that wasting energy is fine as long as you get it cleanly doesn't change the fact that you're still wasting it.

Except people wanting to do more than 15 transactions a minute. Or that to scale everyone would need to store a petabyte size blockchain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network

I have been paying for my VPN with lightning payments; it takes less than one second to go through.

> it takes less than one second to go through Like Bitcoin used to be before someone had the brilliant idea of destroy the possibility of zero-confirmation transactions on-chain with Replace-by-fee transactions

How does this work? I read the wikipedia article but I don't understand how Lightning enforces the transaction.

This link explains it a bit better: https://lightning.network/ and see the paper at the end for the exact details

The peers generate two sets of transactions.

One is a quick summary of the current balance in a channel. A new transaction is created each time the balance in the channel changes. It's somewhat cheap to put on the blockchain (And the main saving is that you only need to post the final update when you close the channel), but venerable to one side putting an old stale transaction onto the blockchain to profit.

The other transaction forms a chain of proof for current state, invalidating previous balance update transactions. It's somewhat expensive to post, as it will pull in the whole history.

Both peers need to continually watch the chain (or contract a 3rd party to watch) to make sure the other peer isn't cheating by posted a stale balance transaction. These special transactions are time locked, so once one is posted, you have like 24 hours to post the proof transaction and reverse it.

Lightning has mostly done this by being a lot more centralized in practice and one could argue... What's the point of it all in this case? Why not just use regular currency?

Could you elaborate why it is more centralized?

The point is that it is resistant to censorship, it is pseudonymous, and so on (all the other bitcoin attributes apply)

Sorry, I do not understand your comment. Can you clarify. What does "a lot more centralized in practice" mean?

> What's the point of it all in this case?

Lightning is an L2 protocol, highly scalable and used for low cost payment in Bitcoin. Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc. Bitcoin protocol is not scalable to serve worldwide money transfer needs; Lightning is. And with the cost of a penny per transaction or so.

> Why not just use regular currency?

There are a lot of frictions in the current banking systems, because money laundering, because drugs, because whatever. Getting $5-$10k in regular currency while on an overseas trip can be a major quest. With Lightning I can transfer that much (or more) in a few mouse clicks.

As a side note, I think the federales are already way too nosy regarding my use of my own money, so I want to give alternative options as much business as I can. My 2c.

Isn't it hard to use in practice? Liveness, inbound liquidity, moving funds between L1 and L2, don't all of those lead to massive use of hubs, this denying the entire premise of decentralization?

Very easy. If the merchant supports it, it is extremely easy; equivalent to pointing your phone at a reader to pay with GooglePay. Between people -- a QR or similar.

This doesn't answer my main concern. How do most people use Lightning? Do they operate on their own or use a big hub?

Sorry, and no offense intended, but can you be clearer? What exactly is your main concern that you allude to above? And how, in your view, the Lightning compares with the alternatives in that specific regards?

Most people who use Lightning do not operate their own nodes; same as with other payment methods -- credit card users do not operate their own payment networks, people writing checks do not operate their own banks, etc.

It feels like we are talking across each other and I just do not get it.

My point is that for legitimate payment uses Lightning (and all current cryptocurrencies) are useless. They were sold as the "democratization of finance" that will "help the world's poorest" and they either:

1. can't allow an single village to operate purely on them, because they're too slow

2. or they're not decentralized, and the entire "democratic" angle dies with that

And then what's the point of cryptocurrencies for most people? Why not just use the "tradfi" and "fiat currencies" and use the money propping up cryptocurrencies to actually make the world a better place?

If we shut down all current cryptocurrencies and diverted resources used to actual productive uses, the world would probably end up with a net gain.

I'm just ranting. I would want cryptocurrencies to be amazing but right now they seem useful for people with cyberpunks fetishes, for criminals, and rarely, for actual regular people from fragile states (not rich people trying to exfiltrate wealth).

> what's the point of cryptocurrencies for most people? Why not just use the "tradfi" and "fiat currencies"

Maybe because otherwise for a significant portion of the world population their own fiat is the only game in town. And it sucks so much that the regular people are willing to break laws and risk fines, confiscations and occasionally prison just for keeping their savings in anything else, like a neighbor country fiat. Their govvies use their fiat as a transfer mechanism (which makes saving impossible) and thus must discourage any other savings vehicle; otherwise no fool will use their fiat.

I saw fiat rug pull twice in my first 25 years: once as an instant nationalization (a friendly radio announcement one night that your money is ... well ... not a money anymore) and, later, a hyperinflation that over 2 years wiped out savings. And being found with a less sucky fiat at home meant jail.

I was just a kid, did not have any savings and thus did not care that much. But an older generation lost everything. So yes, a lot of people will gladly use anonymous, permissionless money, drawdowns and other warts included.

>Level 1 networks are almost never used for user transactions: your credit card payments do not go over fedwire, etc.

Fedwire isn't a "level 1 network", it's an entirely different service with different end users and goals in mind. ACH isn't an "L2 protocol", but does orders of magnitude more transactions per second than Bitcoin.

It's like cryptobros don't understand the basics of the systems they're attempting to replace.

The Lightning Network is specifically designed to work around bitcoin design flaws. It entirely sidesteps the chain for a big part of the process. To me it proves that Satoshi did not, in fact, think of everything. Not the other way around.

> Except people wanting to do more than 15 transactions a minute It's more like 7 transactions per second, which is still absolute crap, but that was after the original Bitcoin project was kidnapped. There aren't such limitations in the original Bitcoin (forked as Bitcoin Cash)

> Or that to scale everyone would need to store a petabyte size blockchain That is addressed in the whitepaper (SPVs and pruning)

There is an interesting missing link in the feedback cycle with Bitcoin though - the same amount is produced regardless, supply does not contract with demand.

The difference is that the quantity of what is being supplied is a factor with supply of oil/gold/grain/etc.

For mining it is just necessary that it happens.

The amount of work in mining is way higher than is required to prevent another party from being able to overwhelm the Blockchain. It is that high because of the subsidy of the mining reward means if Bitcoin has a high value the reward is worth a lot.

This is factored in with the halving of the reward. Either the price will increase exponentially or the mining reward will drop. Causing mining to reduce to those who can be profitable from fees. Which rewards those who can mine most efficiently, it becomes a supply and demand calculation in a market where there are relatively low barriers for competitors.

> The amount of work in mining is way higher than is required to prevent another party from being able to overwhelm the Blockchain.

Isn’t that exactly the point? Bitcoin incentivized wasting resources. It is, according to your own comment, unnecessary to use so much computing to keep bitcoin going. But it’s being used.

The level to be secure is much lower that.

If Bitcoin were worth much less the network would still be secure even though the mining reward would only be enough to pay for a fraction of the current processing.

If Bitcoin does not double in value every four years, the mining reward will reduce in real world terms.

Claiming the mining resources required will be at the current level or higher perpetually requires also making the claim that you think that the value will increase exponentially forever.

Nothing increases exponentially forever.

Yep economics rules everything around me

Its still true and shows one of many issues with bitcoin.

Based on bitcoin cryptobros, you need a certain amount of independent miners for the 'quality' of bitcoins. A bitcoin miner if its a state, can operate with a loss a lot longer if not even infinit, than the decentralized normal people (who do not exist anyway).

It also creates a lot of pressure on miners if you do not run your gpus, yuou are also at a loss, which can break the mining for everyone if too many in parallel go offline, than go olnine again because difficulty droped to much.

And if it becomes to volatile, no one wants to risk it anymore

> if you do not run your gpus

Bitcoin hasn't been viably mineable on GPUs for over ten years. It requires specialized hardware.

As such, mining is typically restricted to those with massive capital investment in a single-purpose, so you really won't see random offloading and onloading of that capacity. As long as it's marginally profitable (with capital investment being a sunk cost, this is the price where it's more than ongoing costs), those miners will keep their machines running.

The original idea was for every single person out there to mine bitcoins on their own computers. Bitcoin screwed that up by allowing big corporations to push out the smaller players. Their big purpose built hardware increased mining difficulty to the point mere mortals need not even apply. Mining on GPUs? Nope, you need purpose built ASICs for this.

Monero is the only cryptocurrency today that's at least trying to implement the original "one CPU, one vote" vision but nobody really cares about it since number doesn't go up.

I'm far from a crypto expert but aren't costs largely GPUs and electricity here?

Those are now being driven by massive AI demand and are likely to remain so for the forseeable future. So how would costs go down?

I don't think GPUs are competitive at all. You need specialized mining rigs with bitcoin mining specialized chips.

And that since a solid decade.

The cost of finding a block goes down because it becomes less difficult.

The goal in proof of work is to find a block hash less than a given value. That value is determined by the network difficulty. The lower the value, the more difficult it is to find a block, and thus the more expensive it will be to mine.

Difficulty is adjusted once every two weeks to target an average block time of 10 minutes. If the average block time during the preceding 2 weeks is less than 10 minutes, it means that blocks were too easy to find (i.e. the difficulty was too low relative to total hash rate of the network). Conversely, if the average block time was greater than 10 minutes, the difficulty was too great.

This is how it the network has maintained a roughly 10 minute block time as the hash rate of the network has grown over the past 16 years. The difficulty (i.e. cost) of finding a block is constantly being adjusted.

Bitcoin is no longer mined by GPUs but by ASICs

Don't the ASICs compete with the same fab capacity that fabs GPUs, RAM, SSDs etc.

You’re fractionally right with GPUs but RAM and SSDs run on different processes at different fabs.

They compete with older GPUs. Not new ones, not RAM, and not SSDs.

If costs stay high, then people will drop out of bitcoin mining, which will cause supply to go down and bitcoin prices to go up.

It won’t cause supply to go down, the same amount of Bitcoin is produced whether it’s mined by millions of ASICs or a single 2008-vintage laptop.

But mining costs are (cost of equipment+cost of electricity)/total coins mined, so can miners not end up in a situation where they need to keep mining to pay off equipment despite the individual coins being unprofitable?

It's no different to a mortgage being in negative equity as the home owner would still be in debt after selling the property.

> The interesting part isn’t the loss per coin, it’s how long the lag between unprofitable mining and difficulty adjustment keeps forced selling pressure on the market.

I follow Bitcoin from a theoretical point of view and I find it fascinating.

Something that boggles my mind a lot is this: Bitcoin, which is somehow a bit "programmable", and Ethereum (which is definitely programmable) are basically the most correct computers on earth. Due to the consensus that needs to be reached by thousands+ of machines. Even if they're imperfect, ECC-less (for the most part), machines.

Now they may still run code with flaws: but they'll all run it exactly in the same way. If, say, a bit-flip occurs on a machine, that machine won't create a block or won't sign a transaction accepted by others. Not part of the consensus. That is wild.

Then the other thing which boggles my mind and which relates to your comment: the "selling pressure on the market" by Bitcoin miners is, no matter what they do, halved every four years. There were, 8 years ago, still 1800 Bitcoins mined per day. Today it's 450.

And in two years (we're midway before the next halving), it's going to be 225.

And Satoshi Nakamoto planned, from the very start.

Maybe it doesn't make sense (economically or from a security point of view: who's going to secure the network when there's not enough block reward anymore?).

But miners will mine 225 Bitcoins per day, not 450, in two years.

And that is totally fascinating.

> I follow Bitcoin from a theoretical point of view and I find it fascinating.

I find it horrible: The damage done to the planet doesn't correlate with the number of transactions. It's maximizing uselessness.

How is it maximizing uselessness? Anymore than anything else, at least?

It does have an outsized environmental impact compared to other technologies people would call useless. The only thing that really tops it in terms of ire and pollution is AI, but that has far more realized applications

In the gap between cost going down and profitability, is there not an increased risk of sybel attacks?

You'd still need to have 51% of the network to perform any successful attack, which despite the price drop is a a MASSIVE capital investment.

It is how bitcoin is designed to work, but it also shows very directly how proof-of-work systems can never scale to be the global monetary replacement its boosters push. If the opposite happened, and the price for some reason sky rocketed to, say, $1 million per bitcoin, it would necessarily mean that it would induce more miners until the difficulty and consequent electricity cost (regardless of the efficiency in electricity generation) also would rise to the neighborhood of $1 million per coin. At the point you're far beyond "Argentina levels" of electricity and getting into "Europe levels" of electricity to run the network.

The electricity demand (and here I mean the overall cost of the electricity, so improvements in $ per kilowatt just mean you need to use more electricity) in proof-of-work systems fundamentally scales linearly with the overall valuation of the coins in the network, which means proof-of-work systems can never scale as large as their fanboys would have you believe.

While I don't disagree in general, there are a couple gaps in your reasoning that weaken the argument:

Adoption doesn't necessarily correlate completely with price. Price can increase without much adoption, due to speculation. In theory, adoption could also increase without much price increase.

Electricity isn't the only requirement for mining. Hardware is also required. Miners can't simply use lots of additional electricity if the hardware isn't there. Yes, new hardware can be manufactured, but it takes time.

The block reward decreases over time. If it's using Europe levels of electricity at time X, then after a block reward decrease, it'll use Europe/2 amount of electricity. This decreasing also disincentivizes manufacturing new hardware.

Miners can have different efficiencies, due to different types of hardware, and different types of electricity generation. So while the least efficient miner will be operating at near breakeven, the most efficient miner will be making much more profit. So while the least efficient miner will use $1M of electricity to mine a $1M coin, the most efficient miner will use less dollars of electricity.

> In theory, adoption could also increase without much price increase.

Not really. A fundamental purpose for any currency is to act as a "store of value". There is no way for bitcoin to represent a store of value (i.e. value commensurate to real-world goods) for a larger and larger portion of society without the price skyrocketing, especially since Bitcoin is inherently deflationary with a max number of coins.

Regarding your other paragraphs, I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how proof-of-work is designed to protect the network. The entire idea behind POW is that the total amount of work must be in direct relationship to the total value of the coins in the network, or else coordinated attacks become possible. I see this misunderstanding all the time in "the block reward decreases over time" argument. It doesn't really matter if miners get their payoff from block rewards or mining fees - they must (on average, over time) get enough reward to make their mining activity worthwhile, and, again, by the inherent design of POW, they need to spend enough on mining to make 51% attacks not worth trying. Just think about how your "If it's using Europe levels of electricity at time X, then after a block reward decrease, it'll use Europe/2 amount of electricity" sentence doesn't make any sense, because eventually in 2140 or so there will be no block rewards, so according to your logic no electricity at all would be required to run the network.

There is simply no getting around the fact that resource costs need to grow linearly with the total value of the network in POW systems.

>The entire idea behind POW is that the total amount of work must be in direct relationship to the total value of the coins in the network, or else coordinated attacks become possible.

The total amount of work must be in direct relationship to the amount an attacker can gain from executing a 51% attack. It's not clear to me that if bitcoin doubles in price, an attacker can gain double the amount from a 51% attack. A 51% attack doesn't allow direct theft of other people's bitcoins. It allows double spend attacks, denial of service attacks, and through those, the ability to tank the price of bitcoin.

>Just think about how your "If it's using Europe levels of electricity at time X, then after a block reward decrease, it'll use Europe/2 amount of electricity" sentence doesn't make any sense, because eventually in 2140 or so there will be no block rewards, so according to your logic no electricity at all would be required to run the network.

It's possible for a block reward to be larger than necessary for security. In that case it can go through several halvings that purely improve efficiency without putting the network at risk. Yes, at some point, with a sufficiently large number of halvings, the network would be at risk, but that doesn't mean we can't have some efficiency gains before that happens. Your previous comment referred to bitcoin using more electricity than Argentina. That's a statement about how much electricity it's currently using, not a statement about how much electricity it needs to use to get the necessary amount of security. It might be possible to decrease the electricity usage while remaining sufficiently secure.

You crucially missed the "halving" out of that model.

The block reward halving every 4 years means that in 3 halvings (8-12 years), miners will spend roughly the same on electricity at $1M/BTC as they do now at $125k/BTC.

Further, at historical rates of dollar devaluation, in a decade $1M will only be worth ~$500k today, and so really only roughly two halvings are required to even the electricity use between $125k/BTC and $1M/BTC

The headline is confusing the issue. Bitcoin miners are losing money because October's crash took Bitcoin from $126,000 to below $70,000, and the Iran war has pushed up oil and electricity prices. The minor difficulty drop is a result of that, as some Bitcoin miners drop out. It's not the cause.

Bitcoin is arguably the worst designed technology product in history.

Burning $88k of carbon to run the world’s slowest payment network and produce a tiny corpus of data is stratospherically dumb.

The technological equivalent of raising a forest to produce a toothpick.

Just because “it works” (which is arguable in itself) doesn’t mean it isn’t stupid.

No one is producing Bitcoin at loss, because it doesn't make any sense, but it might happen temporarily. Imagine the mining cost as a distribution curve, and bitcoin miners filling the distribution from the cheapest upwards to where the cost equals the revenue, i.e. the highest cost miner is at break-even, so that total of 3.125 (+transaction fees) bitcoin worth of hashrate is produced every 10 minutes. All but the highest cost miner operate at profit.

> No one is producing Bitcoin at loss, because it doesn't make any sense

The cost of producing bitcoin is a combination of the marginal cost (running the miner you already have, i.e. mostly power) and paying for the miner that you bought.

If you buy a miner expecting a certain profitability but then the economics change, you can both end up with a loss long term (never able to recoup the cost of the miner) and still be better off continuing to mine (because the cost of the miner is a sunk cost, and as long as the revenue is larger than the marginal cost of running it, you'll at least recoup some of it).

Both of you are right. There is one more edge case: if you commit to buying electricity in advance it might cost you extra to not consume it. It would still be in your interest to use the power at a net marginal loss rather than not using it and paying a fine for failing the contract.

This is just a lie. Coindesk is the worst media in the world.

They can't calculate correct price of mining because it's more complex and enerrgy costs are different in so many regions and inside the electiric producers etc. !

It’s not a lie, nor a damn lie. It’s statistics!

Exactly: "The average production cost was sitting at $88,000 per bitcoin in mid-March". Emphasis on average. Just as in a free market, those miners with higher mining costs are priced out of the market. Or are pressured to become more efficient. Those that are below-average probably already are efficient.

You left off the critically important part of the quote, IMO...

> ... according to Checkonchain's difficulty regression model

It's a guess based on oil costs (as a proxy for energy costs). Personally I think it is completely worthless.

If bitcoin miners are losing $19k for every bitcoin they mine, why would they sell bitcoin to continue funding their mining operations. That just makes it even less profitable because they are driving down the price of their remaining bitcoin. It makes more sense to shut their rigs off completely and wait for the price to rise.

The funny thing about bitcoin is that the rate of bitcoin discovery doesn’t change when they shut off their rigs so it won’t change supply. It would actually make more sense to sell all their bitcoin, flood the market with coins to do the price, wait for large miners to collapse and then restart mining at hopefully lower prices.

> […] why would they sell bitcoin to continue funding their mining operations […]

There are usually some fixed costs involved and you need cash flow. Without cash flow, your business can shut down pretty damn fast. With cash flow, your business can stay around longer, maybe long enough for the economics to shift.

This sort of thing happens with oil. There are oil producers which sell at a loss. There was even a brief moment when the price of an oil barrel went negative, which meant that if you gave somebody a barrel of oil, you had to pay them for the privilege of taking that oil off your hands. Oil producers did not all shut down when that happened.

I am a little doubtful of the $19k figure anyway.

> It would actually make more sense to sell all their bitcoin, flood the market with coins to do the price, wait for large miners to collapse and then restart mining at hopefully lower prices.

This kind of market manipulation is not so straightforward.

> There was even a brief moment when the price of an oil barrel went negative

More accurate: The price for an _option_ to buy/sell oil was negative, not the price of the barrell itself.

How could the option price go below 0? Why couldn't someone just not exercise it in that case?

Unlike equity options, commodity future options are typically written with european style exercise rules.

No, the price of a contract for future delivery to a specific location went negative just before the delivery date, at a time when there was almost no unoccupied oil storage nor transport capacity at said location.

In that circumstance you might sell your right to some oil for almost nothing rather than deal with the consequences of accepting it. You might even pay someone to take it off your hands.

Options is “right but not obligation”. Physically settled futures are an obligation at maturity.

Thanks for correction, that is true!

(Both instruments are not that popular in my country, so my daily language is to put both of them as synonym, while they are different animals in some details)

There are cash settled futures there are closer to options in that they’re purely financial, but even those don’t have optionality at maturity.

Generally a dangerous thing to have as synonyms regardless, otherwise you end up with a coal barge in the east river https://thedailywtf.com/articles/special-delivery

Remembering: WTF was quite popular 20 years ago! :)

Regarding this story: I guess for most private participants, physical delivery is not possible/excluded

Your guess would be wrong. If you’re trading physically settled commodity futures, and don’t close before the settlement date, you are now the owner of a large quantity of your commodity of choice.

It just happened today: https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1siq4m2/any...

Not sure if this is true - there is this Bloomberg evergreen from 2015:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-03/that-time...

How did she not get to buy oil while the reddit guy got it delivered?

And down in your reddit thread someone says: > This is fake but this has happened before years(decades?) ago, hence why brokers added to t&c that they will close out unrolled contracts on your behalf so retards playing oil futes and cfds don't end up having barrels of oil shipped to their nearest port <

Trying to buy a single barrel of oil <> getting assigned on a futures contract. An assigned long isn't getting a physical barrel either, they're transferring into a pipeline/storage facility/truck.

You're right that your broker will do all they can to avoid you shooting both you and them in the foot. But your agreement with your broker does not control your relationship with the counterparty to your futures contract. If the broker doesn't (or can't) close your position in time you('re both) on the hook.

> When miners can't cover costs, they sell bitcoin to fund operations

Surely they should stop producing until its profitable again, or am I missing something?

You're missing that humans are often irrational.

They may be hoping it goes back up.

If everyone stopped mining transactions couldn't go through anymore and the value of bitcoin would drop. If you're heavily invested in bitcoin that's bad. Also miners try to squeeze in their preferred transactions which they can't do when they're not mining. Finally the costs dont drop to zero when you turn the miners off, so the loss from mining might be less than the loss when not mining.

He's not saying everyone, just the ones who are unprofitable. Not everyone mines bitcoin at the same cost. The ones who do have to stop can also profit from curtailment depending on the price of energy relative to hash profit.

Isn’t mining and transactions separate? Sure you need to have online participants, but they don’t have to actively mine, right?

No, mining is exactly what makes transactions go through, computing the next result in chain, certifying that the transaction happened.

You can generate transactions but ultimately transactions are validated and written in the blockchain by miners. Mining is essentially a way to select voters based on their ability to solve puzzles, ensuring that if you are selected once you have no particular advantage next time. Without miners this whole system doesn’t work.

What? That's not true. You don't need more than one CPU miner online for tx to go through. That's why there are difficulty adjustments.

But as number of miners drop arent btc at risk of a 50% attack?

But if you have anywhere near the market power to do a 50% attack, you can make a lot of money mining.

If you bought a bunch of hardware to mine bitcoins, then not using that hardware represents a 100% loss of value. You may lose money producing, but you would lose even more money not producing.

When I was mining circa 2017 - 2021 (approx. 1 BTC/month and 25-30 ETH/month) and planning it all out, I prepared myself psychologically to operate for up to 2 years without any profits or selling. It was a hard pill to swallow and a huge risk; my costs were $8500/month in electrical and then another ~$2200 on a lease for the warehouse. When it dropped to $3,000/BTC a few months after I came online and stayed there for 6-8 months, I started wondering if I was the biggest dumbass in my county.

Thankfully, it all worked out in the end very well. I don't know how anyone would put in the effort/money to get a major crypto farm going and plan to just cash out every month to pay bills. What's the point? I always thought of it as a long-term bet on the price going way up, which it did.

Seems like you could have made that same bet by just buying BTC with that money and doing twice as good.

I dunno, probably only if you don't count for human psychology. If they bought N BTC and tried to held them, would they still hold them when they double in value? What about increasing 10-fold?

Compared to doing some work to getting 1 BTC per month, which you can then individually decide what to do with, instead of a lump sum you could cash out at any moment.

This was my great failure with Bitcoin. Bought in at $100, had many coins at $400. Sold most of it by $3000. Hard to not cash out when your investment goes 30x. In hindsight… ugghhh.

I mined in 2014 with free electricity and that was true even then. That's with hindsight though, the mining reward is more predictable than that market price would increase (more than) equivalently.

Up to a point; once it was over $12k or so, it was cheaper to mine them than to buy them. But yeah, I guess in retrospect I could have just dumped ~$450k into buying BTC when it was at $3,000 and made 3x what I ended up making, but there were other considerations for why I did it at the time. The mining was co-located with my cannabis grow/operations, and in many ways the mining was started secondary to that, even though the mining ended up being a little more profitable over the life of the facility

> The [bitcoin] mining was co-located with my cannabis grow/operations

HN quote of the day!

So its true what they were saying about bitcoin. It is used by criminals.

It's a very low effort article. There are several places where the cost of electricity is roughly zero and state actors have interest in Bitcoin (Iran/Russia) or strong actors more powerful than the state (Libya/Venezuela). It's not surprising that this is good news for them as mining rigs for Bitcoin are much lighter to transport than the ones for oil.

You're not missing anything. As you can see if you read through the thread, they rely on bitcoin miners being heavily invested into bitcoin and bitcoin equipment, so those people will operate unprofitably to prop up their holdings. It's a moron's economy. A system that relies on externalities and corruption, and produces nothing of value. It's the art market with no art.

If bitcoin miners are smart enough to have anticipated this, and decided not to hold onto bitcoin and just let it drop; and also to have repurposed their equipment, sold it to bigger fools, or have just run it into the ground, none of these ideas make any sense.

Why would they, though? The real answer is that governments and monopolists are propping up bitcoin through simply handing tax money to bitcoin holders, and in the case of the latter (also government tit-suckers) leveraging themselves to pump up bitcoin markets when they are down. I'm sick of humoring this because it was once mildly interesting technically. It's a criminal scheme and everyone involved needs to go to prison. When I hear a politician say the word bitcoin, I'm going to do everything in my power to damage that politician.

I need to buy a service. The service is provided in the US, where it is a grey area service. The service provider is not trustworthy enough to give it my credit card, and it doesn't accept neither paypal nor stripe. Unsurprisingly, it accepts bitcoins.

The way bitcoin exists, the provider accepts bitcoin; it doesn't accept other crypto. I would rather bitcoin, or something equivalent to exist than not.

There is also the case of people who hold value in bitcoin because it is more stable than their banks; go figure. This was the case in Argentina and Venezuela. That was also a gray area, but I think it would morally acceptable to do that even if it was prohibited

What did folks in Argentina and Venezuela do before Bitcoin? Perhaps that's even better?

Decades ago, in my country it was illegal to hold dollar bills. Naturally, you couldn't have dollar bank accounts. What was done back then was to illegally keep bills inside bags, hidden, and pray god they weren't found because you would go to prison.

The alternative is not holding money yourself. Buy everything as soon as you can, and hoard physical goods, which is cumbersome, dangerous and inefficient. Bitcoin is an upgrade in all senses.

If Bitcoin were similarly illegal, would it still be an upgrade?

Yes. It will always be better than holding illegal bills.

I am talking about normal people who want to take money out of the country. if you own a shop you will know how to surf the hostile environment; they probably already have contacts.

If you've already bought a miner, you will mine until the price of electricity exceeds the revenue from mining. If what's left over after paying for the electricity isn't enough to pay for the cost of the miners (and other already-committed fixed costs), you might make a loss, but still be incentivized to continue to at least recoup some of the loss.

Sensationalistic headline.

The compute supply/demand for mining is designed in the bitcoin algorithm to oscillate, and the mining game is about being able to forecast a complex combo of BTCUSD price, power price, hardware price and depreciation.

Remarks like the title of this clickbait article are strictly meaningless, they assume the instantaneous price of bitcoin / power / hardware is what's used to compute profitability, when in practice mining is basically a futures market.

It's 2026 and there's still people that believe that proof-of-work makes sense as a consensus mechanism

There is a breakthrough on a more productive Po(useful)W: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47430951

Isn't the whole point of PoW that the work done is otherwise useless? I mean: you invest money (in form of your hardware/electricity bill) to mine a block, and that ensures that whoever would like to fork the chain has to spend at least as much money to do it. If PoW can earn you extra money outside of the Bitcoin ecosystem (by making the work "useful") it lowers the cost of the 51% attack, potentially making it profitable.

I understand that there was a problem finding a useful PoW from the computer science perspective, and that paper is showing a solution.

Now, it doesn't necessarily lower the cost of an attack because you can adjust the required output to a cost that is suitable.

Sure, why should my opinion have changed?

Hopefully between this and looming cryptographically relevant quantum computing, this whole house of cards will come crumbling down. And those who invested vast capital to burn carbon in order to evade finance regulations will lose everything. Probably not. But it’s a nice dream.

Isn't AI the new hot thing, why are the miners still going after Bitcoin, when they can probably just use the same infra for AI and make more money, stay profitable.

Hash mining asics don’t work well for AI

"don't work well for AI" is a hell of an understatement, the Application they are Specific to is literally just sha256(sha256(x)), what AI are you going to do with that?

GP probably didn't mean that hardware though, but rather the facility, electricity supply, cooling, etc.

Why double sha256?

a that’s the botcoin hashing algorithm.

I figured that part out, I wonder why it's being doubled.

That was the way satoshi wanted it. No other explanation is known.

The disappointing truth is that we simply don't know. Satoshi never explained it. For SHA-2 it can be used as a mitigation against length-extension attacks¹, and this seems like the most likely explanation, but it's just speculation.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_extension_attack

Would length extension impact bitcoin? The messages aren’t secret afaik.

This is true, but large miners also have beneficial electricity contracts and data center capacity, both suitable for AI workloads.

Totally different infra: bitcoin these days is all dedicated ASICs that have basically no other use, unlike GPUs.

Article covers that briefly.

> The publicly traded miners have been adapting by diversifying into AI and high-performance computing, which offer more predictable revenue than mining bitcoin at a loss. Marathon Digital, Cipher Mining, and others have been building out data center capacity alongside their mining operations.

Yes, it does but lacks depth, the problem here is they are diversifying not pivoting and by virtue of game theory for each miner they stand to win on others exit, as the mining difficulty goes down, but this is creating a loss-loss situation.

the market is made up of many goods and services. Different people want different things at different times.

My big picture take here; this is precisely why bitcoin itself could perhaps go to zero, and yet other cryptocurrencies could survive, aka the so-called "flippening."

It may come to pass that "proof-of-work" was merely a good proof of concept to launch the idea; but proof-of-stake is (of course) better.

Maybe a basic question - do miners use solar?

Prices are dropping so fast it seems like the cheapest way to power mining rigs.

Also free grid electricity for three hours a day in Australia will be interesting.

They generally use whatever is available and cheapest. However, due to the constant power demand and the capital cost involved (you don't want your miners sitting idle), if that isn't grid power, its often either "reliable" renewables (e.g. hydro), "stranded" fossil energy (e.g. gas that would otherwise be flared off), or in the worst case, literally buying a coal power plant that was about to shut down just to power a Bitcoin mine.

Can someone convince me bitcoin mining isn't anything other than a huge waste of energy?

Depends on if you see the use case of censorship resitant payment as something we should allow or not (such as paying the Ayatollah to go through the strait).

I for one don't.

But even of you do see the use, why not proof of stake rather than proof of work?

It's far less studied and didn't exist (to any usable degree) at the time it was made. And it's extremely different, organizationally, so it's a difficult migration to pull off. And it has different incentives. And most miners have a lot of costs (e.g. hardware) that won't be recoverable if it's changed, so there's a fairly strong incentive to not change it.

Ethereum uses proof of stake now though (since 2022). Which happened in part because Ethereum is effectively centralized, or at least significantly more-so than Bitcoin.

I'll throw "proof-of-useful-work" into the ring. Reallocating at least a portion of BTCs verification onto existing energy costs could go a long way. Not suggesting it would be easy or that the entire network would be able to agree on what tasks to use, just that it's a theoretical option.

It's also not simply a matter of agreeing on what tasks to use. The task has to be computationally difficult to perform, but computationally trivial to verify. It must also be verifiable with only the context of the blockchain (no "oracle" that can make claims about real-world events).

Primecoin exist(ed?) and used the search for Mersenne prime numbers as its proof-of-work. That was 13 years ago and is still the only example I know of "proof-of-useful-work", and it would not be difficult to find sour voices challenging its usefulness.

Well, this list of known PoUW might be of interest: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209672092...

While they don't have that many in the wild, the number of implementations it lists is still more than I expected. There's also the Monero 51% takeover, which was purportedly done using a PoUW technique to garner more hashing power.

https://qubic.org/blog-detail/historic-takeover-complete-qub...

I'm not an expert on this, but maybe it is easier to pressure the verifiers to not verify sanctioned entities? Seems to be already happening with Ethereum US nodes maintaining OFAC lists. Maybe one can also pressure them to verify alternative blocks without the transactions, then they won't be possible.

Other than that, it is probably tradition at this point, like with Gold.

I can't because I think it is. It's also doing its part in destroying the planet as a consequence.

Sounds like you've already made up your mind?

The US govt can tell banks to cut off your access to USD.

And how does BTC play in this scenario?

You can send BTC to the affected person or org and then they are free to decide what to do with it.

This happened to Wikileaks.

If I had a dollar for every time, at some time in the past ten years, when the true believer bitcoin pumpers were saying things like "Bitcoin will be above a million per coin in the next five years!"... Yeah, about that....

Is there a SQQQ for BTC?

If you're being sincere, there are many easily accessible ways to short Bitcoin with leverage.

You can take stable-coins, borrow bitcoin against them and sell them. (Fully or over-collateralized). Then buy back bitcoin if/when it drops.

If you’re wrong, you lose your stable-coins.

Let us know how it goes :)

SMST (Defiance Daily Target 2x Short MSTR ETF) could be a rough equivalent.

As the other poster mentioned though, many miners won't be using oil-based energy sources, so it does make one wonder about cause and effect. Maybe a dip in BTC would've done it regardless of oil?

The CME offers Bitcoin futures which can be shorted if you have a futures trading account with a broker.

There is BITI which is the inverse of IBIT, the largest Bitcoin ETF afaik

Shouldn't the price therefore go down? (Bitcoin should be an instrument the price of which correlates with the cost of the energy required to make new ones).

Just waiting what quantum computing would do to crypto.

There's a reason why countries invented a central bank who decides how much currency gets printed.

which is?

My understanding is lots of bitcoin farms use stolen electricity.

Ie. Hidden away in a storage closet in a school or office, or in someone's house with an electric meter bypassed.

If a decent chunk of mining does that, then it could become uneconomical for those who do pay for their power.

Your assumption is certainly not true. The large miners are just in close proximity to electricity generation sources where power is much cheaper.

Large amounts of btc mining are done via things like typo squatted images in compute clusters, or other compromised machines, the compute is stolen so the cost is effectively zero to the miner

This title is incorrect. When mining difficulty drops, Bitcoin becomes easier and cheaper to mine, so miners usually make more money per coin, as long as the Bitcoin price stays the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com