pull down to refresh

Bitcoin mining in the crypto crash — the mining companies’ creative accountingarchive.ph/UIcdo
46 sats \ 8 comments \ @BTCMiner 5 Aug 2022 bitcoin
zaps forwarded to @notgeld (100%)
write
preview
related posts
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
The link for this post is using an archive for the article on Amy Castor's website. This archive was used because there are one or more inaccuracies in the article, so the archive will show the original article (or at least at the time of this writing) before the ninja edits in the article occur. The link for the article on Amy Castor's website is:
Bitcoin mining in the crypto crash — the mining companies’ creative accounting https://amycastor.com/2022/08/04/bitcoin-mining-in-the-crypto-crash-the-mining-companies-creative-accounting/
reply
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
It doesn't help that the footnote references in the BMC report has links that were made ALL CAPS, and thus invalid. But I found a year-end 2021 report which is close. The authors of this article made a rookie mistake, so I responded:
The BMC claim is 0.16% "of the world's energy production". As in all energy -- including hydrocarbons and nuclear. Your article makes a false claim there.
A 2021 BP report shows global energy consumption is 595 EJ, which is 165,278 TWh. BMC says mining is 247 TWh. That's ~0.15%.
https://nitter.it/BTCMiner/status/1555453030392291328
reply
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
Actually it is a 2022 report, so I deleted the Tweet and did another with correct year.
https://nitter.com/BTCMiner/status/1555456783401062401
The 2022 report from the BP website is:
https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
The miners also did accounting tricks, such as depreciating mining rigs over five years — and not the 15 months they should have [..]
The author is making it sound like the miners broke a law or something.
Anyway, later in the article she references another article / blog post presumably where she got the 15 months from. That article was also shared, previously, here on SN:
The problem with bitcoin miners [seen on Hacker News] #28657 https://paulbutler.org/2022/the-problem-with-bitcoin-miners https://archive.ph/5g3br
tl;dr: Nobody knows ... a modern (2021) S19 Pro 110, for example, might be producing bitcoin for ten years, who knows. IRS allows 5 years, and that's what the miner's used (and disclosed, as far as I know).
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
The BTC chain took an hour between blocks at times in November 2017 — about 15% of the previous hash power.
Now that's just an outright lie. Bitcoin didn't lose 85% of its hashrate during the BCash fork. Variance happens. We've can see an hour between blocks multiple times every week yet today. It's called variance.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @BTCMiner OP 5 Aug 2022
Those loans are never getting paid off. The mining rigs are near-worthless, and the bitcoins held as collateral can’t be dumped without taking the market down even further.
The bitcoins will likely be dumped, putting more sell pressure on the price of bitcoin.
Didn't she just mention earlier in the article from the CoinTelegraph article that miners are accumulating aggressively once again?
Oh well, ... haters gonna hate.
reply
26 sats \ 0 replies \ @notgeld fwd 5 Aug 2022
Yes. Somewhat sad that Bitcoin Mining Council was created specifically for such people but they just ignore data and instead use their own agitated sources.
reply