Laundering IS forbidden, by definition.
Project Discovery isnāt even remotely the same as PoW mining.
Yes it may be done using relatively dirty energy, and while the usefulness of the output may be questioned since it doesnāt seem obvious who is using the results, it is clear that the intention is for research which could benefit the global population.
In comparison, most PoW currencies are reliant on the problems being computationally difficult to solve to ensure their security, and since the difficulty scales with hashing power to maintain consistent block times, PoW by design use huge amounts of energy.
There is also no comparison between the energy usage of project discovery and bitcoin; the highest ever player count was 65,303, if that count was maintained and everyone of them did project discovery solidly for a year they would use about 286,000 kWh (assuming 500W/pc), about 0.0000031% of Bitcoins 91,000,000,000 kWh, which also seems to highlight the vast amount of energy being wasted by Bitcoin, not to mention all the other currencies, how much of that is green energy?
So what if we use a LOT of energy from our own solar panels (or private wind turbines).
The solar panels use metals (mined) and plastics (drilled). The energy we are using is clean, the panels (and wind turbines) are not.
Wait until we plug in those metal/plastic/petrolium based EV cars into the grid, itās going to be a bad day for the grid, rolling blackouts because we want to plug them in all at once.
Your outrage is misplaced, it is all āout of sight, out of mindā when it comes to the real source of pollution.
1 Like
itās kWā h (or kWh) not kW/h.
power = work / time => work = powerā time.
(also, work = distanceā force, and force = accelā mass = distance/time/time ā mass so work = distanceā distance/time/time ā mass, which is the dimension of mvĀ² : for light emission, E=mcĀ² )
I donāt really have any outrage or specific dislike for cryptocurrencies and certainly donāt blame them singlehandedly for the worlds environmental issues, but I would argue that it is a factor that needs to be strongly considered before worldwide adoption of PoW crypto is encouraged.
If crypto-mining was done using only renewable energy it would significantly change its perception, but while there are certainly some green mining operations, iām quite certain there are plently more that arenāt - for example I wonder if Aaron pays the extra for a green energy tariff for his home mining, or like most people simply finds the cheapest deal to maximise profit?
If thereās going to be rolling blackouts due to EV usage, maybe this is another strong argument for reducing unnecessary usage elsewhere so that the grid can cope with charging of EVs? It would seem a bit silly to be grinding through artificially created maths problems while not being able to charge cars that have a real world useā¦
Renewable energy, that doesnāt just float down into a power socket.
It has to be converted by a device, a device that is made out of raw materials that have to be gathered, produced into a product, transported into place, serviced in place, wonāt be working all the time etc etc.
Youāre not removing pollution, youāre just moving it. Out of sight, out of mind.
Cars and computers and turbines and panels and batteries and cables and lubricant arenāt made from clouds.
Look my car is an EV, yeah its green, the only thing green on it is the paint colour perhaps.
Good luck with those wind turbines, they donāt turn cuz itās either too windy, not enough wind, or too cold. Batteries, yeah, they donāt tend to hold charge in freezing temps. Ignore the helicopter servicing the turbine too.
Turbines are a great way to get rent for years, thatās the only reason farmers want em on their fields. Rent money. Itās like a plastic/metal tree in the open space, never fluttering, just standing there raining down rent money. Iām sitting staring at wind turbines now, not turning at all, somebody getting rich though.
1 Like
Thanks, its been corrected.
So theoretically, if we shutdown Bitcoin, how many weeks more do we get before the same amount of oil and coal is burned?
You know all this pointing at consumers and blaming ourselves is a really effective distraction from the actual problem.
Thatās called lifecycle net evaluation.
If your device produces more energy than the total required to build it, then the source of the energy is not important, because they can be exchanged. The problem is, when they canāt - typically EV canāt replace fuel engines in mines. In that case, you need to take into account the total pollution of the building process, which means that yes, even wind energy is not 100% green. The production of carbon per J is still much lower than the one of fuel generators, because those ALSO need materials
The end product is also not green, it may have a āgreenā colour or a āgreenā sales pitch, but the actual extraction of materials and forming of those materials into a product are not. The materals themselves are not āgreenā.
Itās like saying, we stopped buying oil/gas from this country having a conflict, but buying it from another one that also has a conflict. Sound better, but isnāt.
Yes it is.
In the net lifecycle, all items required are considered. Of course you also need to consider the living conditions of the workers. (spoiler : human energy is the least green one)
No itās not. Because they are taken into account, so your argument is plain nonsense.
So stopping buying energy from country A that is disliked, and replacing it from country B that is liked (and a big buyer of other conflict enabling āitemsā), both have conflicts and one a with terrible human rights record (B), is sound and rational.
Not sure how that sits on the moral high ground.
Butā¦ Bitcoin bad. Ok.
2 Likes
So how about the huge number of asics that have been produced and can serve no other purpose than crypto mining, before becoming obsolete and joining the growing mountain of electrical waste, as you say they arenāt build from clouds and seem like an area where materials/energy could have been saved.
You mean like mobile phones?
2 Likes
Someone who makes Ā£30 per month (1 PC with 1 video card) isnāt going to get taxed, you need Ā£1,351.35 per month to get taxed. That someone needs at least 45 of those rigs to be taxed. One rig pays itself back in about 2 years. It needs people with great motivation, focus on honing crypto and IT skills and people who can hodl when they see the market move. Iām not sure if thatās a lot of people, and I think a lot will try and quit. Ironically, just like EVE Online. 
1 Like
You mean the market that stagnated and is in decline now? Well, people can choose to replace them. And itās a luxury that people who didnāt buy new can still call people anywhere on their smartphones(as a mobile phone does), make pictures (replacing cameras), read forums and shitpost using lower energy than if they would do it on their PCā¦ it has better use than Bitcoin.
People who are stuck with homegrown crypto mining farms canāt, they NEED the next ASIC or video card to keep up or their rewards go down and they end up spending much more than they make in return.
Your argument seems to pretty much be āif weāre bad in one area then why bother improving in other areasā, yes the mobile phone industry has massive electrical waste and also deserves some attention, especially since the desire to upgrade it often driven by image rather than functionality.
But, if we stopped making Asics and instead found a more efficient form of cryptocurrency, while not reducing the phone market it is still a net win. If we can reduce both, and many other areas, naturally its even better.
As I said Iām not against crypto-currency as an idea, it definitely delivers some benefits, but I also think that there must be a better way than what we currently have available.
The rigs I buy can fit 8 GPUās per rig.
If in the UK and ones earnings from ALL sources, full or part time PAYE job and they do crypto mining, then they will be taxed on their entire income.
so for example If I earn Ā£1,000 per month from a part time job at Mcdonalds, and I earn Ā£200 per month from crypto then I donāt pay any tax.
Self employed UK residents must fill out a yearly tax return and detail ALL their earnings from all sources.
I posted a link some days ago about two 14 and 9 year old boys who earn $30,000 per month mining Ethereum. They only had help from their dad and Youtube. So more people than you think either know or can easily learn these skills with some dedication.
1 Like
No they wonāt, crypto mining income, because the coins are considered an asset rather than a currency donāt form part of your income tax.
As an asset, gains from cryptocurrency are counted under capital gains tax which has a separate annual allowance to your income tax allowance, meaning you can earn currently Ā£12,300 a year tax free from mining even if your are working fulltime, so most UK people mining will pay no tax on the income generated.
1 Like
Not entirely true with GPU mining, My GPUās are commissioned to mine many types of crypto coins, I am just paid in BTC. I will probably have to update my GPUās in 2 or 3 years. Currently I am using AMD RX 5600 XTās, the difficulty of these other coins havenāt affected my operation it is more the current price of BTC that has an effect on my operation.
You obviously completely ignore the fact I am a GPU crypto miner and I have clearly stated I have earned back most of the money I spent on rigs quickly. I have made money. I hope that is clear enough for you.
1 Like