pull down to refresh
0 new comment
16 sats \ 7 replies \ @jp OP 15 May 2022
In the event you want to bathe in the hate: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31389647
reply
0 new comment
11 sats \ 1 reply \ @2big2fail 15 May 2022
yeah i remember when HN was a bastion of intelligence and curiosity
reply
0 new comment
25 sats \ 0 replies \ @jp OP 15 May 2022
I think HN still has an intelligent userbase, but they're smart within their own domain (software engineering); when it gets into Economics I think the community falls completely flat.
I've seen a recurring theme on HN forums, specifically related to Finance, where there is this ingrained hatred. I believe most of this stems from early-stage software engineers feeling "cheated" out of equity in companies and - in turn - think all finance is evil (when in reality they just were naive about how finance & equity actually works).
reply
0 new comment
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @tbonesteaks 16 May 2022
This top comment seems like it was posted mostly in good faith and the arbitrage angle was one I haven’t thought of before. But, the conclusion seems to be that governments are going to shut down mining because it uses too much electricity? Outside of that rather aggressive measure, the arbitrage seems like a good thing, or am I missing some nuance in what he is positing?
reply
0 new comment
50 sats \ 2 replies \ @jp OP 16 May 2022
I think the overall posting confuses the point of "arbitrage" and "value-added enhancement".
"Arbitrage" would be taking one asset (e.g bitcoin) and transferring it from one market to another (without any modification to the bitcoin itself) to make some profit due to market inefficiency.
"Value-added Enhancement" is the work (e.g electricity, computational power) that is produced to create a sellable good (e.g bitcoin).
The author incorrectly assumes that energy costs (e.g the potential energy of a bitcoin) is equal to an actual bitcoin and improperly classifies this as "arbitrage". Given that energy != bitcoin, but rather energy + computational hashes = bitcoin means that there will always be a profit-opportunity for mining companies.
My $0.02.
P.S. - Like the original HN poster mentioned, I am also an idiot.
reply
0 new comment
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @shyfire 16 May 2022
That top comment also totally ignores the fact that the future of BTC is dynamic and uncertain. What's going to happen when block rewards are from tx fees only? Nobody knows. But that author seems content to extrapolate.
All in all I felt that top comment was a straw-man type of approach.
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @tbonesteaks 16 May 2022
As a fellow idiot, that was a super helpful response. Thank you.
reply
0 new comment
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @sam 15 May 2022
I gave that a try and couldn’t take much. No wonder the tech industry is a clown show of one JavaScript framework after another. It’s filled with people who think they know everything.
reply
0 new comment
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @BlueSlime 16 May 2022
The biggest misnomer that I see expressed repeatedly in these debates over energy usage, is that the Earth's energy supply is monolithic and extremely scarce, therefore the miners are drinking out of the same milkshake as your desk lamps and air conditioner.
Miners make their money off consuming electricity that nobody else wants. Their overall consumption just proves how much energy was being otherwise wasted or unused.
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BTCMiner 5 Aug 2022
The article by Paul Butler was referenced in an article that was shared in another post, here on SN:
Bitcoin mining in the crypto crash — the mining companies’ creative accounting
#54798
https://amycastor.com/2022/08/04/bitcoin-mining-in-the-crypto-crash-the-mining-companies-creative-accounting/
https://archive.ph/UIcdo
reply
0 new comment
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @faithandcredit 15 May 2022
is it fair to argue that companies that report profits are doing it wrong
reply
0 new comment