Googling to find something and a Stacker.news post was #2 in the search results.
So I think that's a first Google would have taken me to SN.
Anyway, then out of curiosity I added site:reddit.com to the search criteria to see if Google would yield any results from Reddit. There were some matches, but I tried to read the article (without logging into Reddit), ... and it was an absolutely friggin miserable time.
Notifications for OG users should be a bit faster on average now. It's roughly a 50x performance enhancement according to the DB's cost analysis. Not a long term solution, but it'll be a little more tolerable for the next while.
I don't get #2. At first glance, I would guess means it is not yielding qualified applicants, maybe even totally unqualified applicants (?) and responding to those is expensive?
Or, is it just a way of saying it's just too small of audience, not worth the time to even post a job listing?
clicks to the Apply link? (can SN even know this?)
Until there's the front page on ~jobs filled with listings, an adjustment to the minimum sats/[day?] price might be helpful, just to at least get SNers in the market to continue looking at the page. Only one or two active listings yet today a week or two after launch likely indicates a number of things, and cost to list is likely one of the significant factors.
They don't get any of that data - easily at least.
Yeah, decreasing the price more might be the move or maybe 1 sat/min just feels expensive if you don't trust the math it does to generate the per month rate. I could do something like 1000 sats/day as the minimum, which is 440 sats/day less than 1 sats/min ... but perhaps it feels significantly cheaper because they can do the math in their head.
yeah.. interesting problem. 2 sided market place is hard.. free is no good but lowering might help populate with listings from the employer side... once more traffic is established then start increasing the treshold to improve listing quality or just allow the auction dynamics to sort things out.
Just thinking about how we need to talk more about decentralizing the bitcoin mining industry which I feel has a single point of failure in having large industrial miners controlling a large percentage of the network as they can be targets for governments who want to attack the network. I believe what the network needs is lots of individual home miners across the world.
What are your thoughts guys?
Over the long term, we can be comforted by the fact that low cost-energy is not concentrated to any one geographic area or political jurisdiction. The existing low-cost energy which was well in excess of demand, well yes -- that's mostly been identified and either being consumed (e.g., excess hydroelectric capacity wherever it exists), or bitcoin mining is prohibited there (e.g., China, parts of Quebec, etc.).
However if we're at about 15 GW now (per CBECI) and the mining equipment manufacturers are producing another 15 GW or whatever (likely more) of demand in the next couple years, that equipment will displace older equipment -- much of which will head to new homes (unless, bitcoin price rises faster than the hashrate, which might cause even the old equipment to remain in-place longer). The new homes for the equipment that got replaced will not be the large industrial miners. The destinations for those might be hundreds or thousands of additional oil field sites. The destinations might include where new approaches are attempted (e.g., gas from bio-digesters in agricultural regions). Or where the heat is what is needed (e.g., for drying grains, or heating a greenhouse), and mining justifies doing that with electricity. Whether that keeps enough hashrate in the non-industrial mining operations to alleviate your concern, that's hard to tell at this point.
But the surest way to a win is to make it so the grid is reliant on the bitcoin mining for reliability. If bitcoin mining brings additional revenue for the power producer that would otherwise not run at capacity, well then taking that opportunity away might then result in higher prices to the consumer. Or if the only way construction of additional capacity can be justified is if bitcoin mining is there to buy power outside of the peak period, then messing with mining (i.e., blacklists, whitelists, whatever) might cause the lights to not remain on -- which is not something the politicians want to be seen as being responsible for.
So, ... long term, likely not a concern. Near term, it's really an unknown. We have to see how much equipment these manufacturers actually will be shipping. The hashrate has historically not lagged price rallies by this much and/or for this long of a period of time. If the hashrate grows 50% in just a couple months, it's very likely from large industrial ops coming online with new hardware). If that happens, then for a period of time (maybe until the halving), ... we would be exposed to the risk of which you expressed concern.
Tl;dr: It is a misconception that only a few miners control the game because every pool consists of many miners. And with what recently happened in Monero we have a proof that the individual miners do care.
Haven't read yesterday's thread but learing today that BVBTC spent three full months carving an eyeball out of marble (for Miami trade show), gives me a new appreciation for the amount of work is involved in such things!
site:reddit.comto the search criteria to see if Google would yield any results from Reddit. There were some matches, but I tried to read the article (without logging into Reddit), ... and it was an absolutely friggin miserable time.