There's always going to be haters...
I was just reading an article the other day where they were talking about one of the new crypto mining facilities in upstate New York. Apparently many companies have started to move that way due to the significantly lower energy costs.
Personally, I see this as a good thing. I think as the United States sees more and more companies establishing businesses like this it is going to further enforce the legitimacy of crypto currency to them and force them to make some decisions that they have been putting off for a long time. Most specifically regarding the rules and regulations that they keep talking about but never taking action.
Of course there are always detractors and in this case it is coming from a very surprising source.
Apparently, the crypto mining company in the article has located their facility on the banks of a lake in upstate New York. They pump in the water from the lake to cool their mining rigs and then they send the warmed water back into the lake.
The company has all of the proper permitting to only pump in and out a certain amount of water each day. Additionally, they have strict temperature guidelines they have to follow for the water they pump back out. In most cases they have not even been halfway to the temperature thresholds that are established.
For example they can't pump water any warmer than 126 degrees Fahrenheit back into the lake or something like that. The water they have been pumping is only 66 degrees, etc.
Despite that fact, a number of residents that live around the lake have started to raise concerns that the mining facility is raising the temperature of the lake.
Here is a link to one of the recent stories about it if you want to check it out yourself.
To me, this feels a lot like low hanging fruit. At least in my neck of the woods it has been a much hotter and dryer Summer than usual so far. I think we are going to get short respite soon, but there is no doubt in my mind global warming does exist.
I am sure it isn't possible that is part of what might be contributing to the increased temperatures in the lake. Nope, it has to be that evil fake Internet money...
My guess is, many of these people who are complaining don't even understand the fundamentals of crypto currency to realize what they are saying is ridiculous.
While I don't disagree that the lake temperatures might be rising from the plant, I think they are using it as a crutch to attack something they don't understand. The fact is, the plant is brining jobs and revenue (through taxes) to the community.
The supposed environmental impact becomes the easy thing to attack right now because there have already been unfounded and sensational articles about it.
Like I said, it feels like low hanging fruit and bandwagon jumping to me.
What do you think? Did you read one of the articles about this plant? Do the residents have a point?
Let's discuss it in the comments!
Sports Talk Social - @bozz.sports
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
https://twitter.com/JayBosworth5/status/1412373893856129024
The rewards earned on this comment will go directly to the person sharing the post on Twitter as long as they are registered with @poshtoken.
Crypto mining companies should be subject to the same environmental regulations as others. If people can actually feel the difference then it's likely to affect the ecology. Of course there's often a NIMBY (not in my back yard) aspect to such stories.
I get that many see it as a waste of energy and I can agree to some extent. Just because Bitcoin and others use proof of work does not mean it is justifiable as we have alternatives. It's not very scalable. Also mining is likely to be seen as a pure money-grab as there's little visible benefit to others. Crypto does have an image problem and causing environmental issues will not help.
I don't think they are causing environmental issues though. no more so than printing off a dollar. This feels more like a "I don't understand it so I am going to bash it" sort of thing.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Printing dollars is not too resource intensive. Some numbers here on Bitcoin energy usage. 1800 kWh sounds a bit low for one Bitcoin.
Everything we do has an impact. Have to decide if it is worth the cost. People will tolerate a big factory if it generates lots of local jobs. Mining companies probably don't employ too many.
I fail to believe that. I think the environmental impact when you consider pulling the raw materials is far greater than the process of minting. I think the overall cost is significant.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Actually 1800 kWh is the amount per transaction as also said here. Equivalent to 2 million Visa transactions.
A dollar has to cost a lot less than a dollar to produce and people are using a lot less cash these days.
I think crypto would be an easier sell if we were talking about something like Hive where the energy requirement is relatively tiny. Surprised Musk does not pay attention to coins not using proof of work if he actually cares about that. Using hydro or other renewable sources is good, but we need that for other things.
I think it is more about the quantity though. They are printing billions of dollars at a time so even if it is less than the value it is still going to be pretty significant.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I know governments are 'printing' billions these days, but much of that will not be actual paper money. I hardly use cash these days and it's generally in decline. The comparison with Visa seems more relevant. A single Bitcoin transaction can be lots of small one, but probably not 2 million. Meanwhile Hive does it for free as the energy cost is minute.
I think a lot of people are defending Bitcoin as they hold some, but it's not great for actually buying stuff and so not directly comparable with fiat/cash. Plus, do the miners care about the freedom aspect or is it just something to make money from? I was just discussing with @dickturpin (he asked to be tagged) about the motivations of Hive users.
The problem is everything is tied to BTC right now, so even if you don't hold it, you have to care about it. Most people don't know the difference and lump them all together so dispelling the false narrative about BTC is likely going to be the only way you can squash the FUD about any other token. You and I understand that Hive is far superior, but most people think they are all one in the same.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
That's a marketing issue rather than a technical one.
I do uderstand some of the concerns about the energy mining is absorbing. Especially for the more 'traditional' tokens / crypto. There is a need of a lot of processingpower which consumes a lot of energy. but with most development there are a lot of coins which need way less energy to be mined. And like @steevc says, many people do think mining is for money grabbing. I do believe that is the fact in the massive mining rigs in asia for instance, low energy costs and a good revenue. But the reputation of Crypto in general is stil bad, people thonk it's a bubble, it's nothing.. But we do know that there are some great initiatives on the blockchain, with some great (alt) coins....
I'd love to see a comparison of the environmental impact of fiat currency from the mined minerals to the textiles used versus crypto currency. I have a feeling that people would be shocked at just how energy intensive it is from start to finish. Like I said, I think a lot of people use this excuse as a scapegoat because it makes it easy for them to not have to learn about it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
New Yorkers doing New York things.
Mining there is a mistake to begin with. That state finds problems even if you are "compliant" with all their regulations. They'll do that through so-called "local residents".
Yeah, I would have thought that a different state might have been a better pick. I guess it is all based on the energy costs, but in this case the red tape seems like it isn't worth it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think its just the temperature changes and we are in summer. Since its New York, they tend to be really strict on the environment and I think its a mistake to build a mining company there. At least I would move towards a crypto friendly place.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I think Wyoming makes more sense since they are already so crypto friendly. I agree that I think part of it is just the time of year. If we start seeing a rapid fish or plant die off then maybe there might be some truth to it.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
I saw this reported on Arstechnica. Seems they are using an old power plant that is largely redundant and so burning gas for their power. I read a few articles on that site and for anything about crypto the comments are largely anti based around:
They had another story about ransomware mentioning the crooks want paying in Bitcoin, so someone says crypto should be banned of course.
Crypto does have an image problem. As it's mostly used for speculation then people are not sympathetic. We need more talk about more efficient coins like Hive that have real use cases, but that is not such an easy headline.
From what I read the company has plans to reduce its carbon footprint. Stuff like that takes time. People are morons and you can't fix stupid.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Which people? ;) The mining company is likely to do whatever is profitable, as most companies do. A lot of them talk up being greener as a marketing exercise. Hive could be marketed as a real greener alternative to other crypto, but that needs funds.
The people who think crypto is just for illegal activity.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
i think they have a point. If i'm in my environment around my lake and all this crypto mining going on i understand enough to know its not good for the lake and the wildlife in the lake and why should i care further than that when i'm not the beneficiary of cryptocurrency. See alot of people out there in the mainstream they not benefiting from crypto with distribution rates as horrible as we have why should they be.
The algos on the horizon really don't need all these mining facilities anyway. Bitcoin does but then bitcoin 87% of the network is owned by 1%.. Why should i care about that. If i'm going to care about a cryptocurrency i'd just pick the ones that don't need as many mining facilities i'd look for a different algo. So i think they have a valid point. I can see why people invested in bitcoin would be upset but thats their problem. Whoever decided bitcoin shouldn't evolve maybe they lack the foresight to see what the future looks like. So if its another way no i'm not going to champion bitcoin on theories of it may or may not destroy the environment i don't have to take the chance and they don't either.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta