As US Crypto Mining Surges, Lawmakers Demand Disclosure of Emissions and Energy Data (theguardian.com) 123
The world has changed since China banned cryptomining, the Guardian reports. And now "more than a third of the global computing power dedicated to mining bitcoin comes from the US, Senator Elizabeth Warren and five other Democrats reported in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency..."
But the Guardian also notes there's two problems with this: - The largest US cryptomining companies have the capacity to use as much electricity as nearly every home in Houston, Texas; energy use that is contributing to rising utility bills, according to an investigation by Democratic lawmakers...
- "The results of our investigation ... are disturbing ... revealing that cryptominers are large energy users that account for a significant — and rapidly growing — amount of carbon emissions," the letter states.
"It is imperative that your agencies work together to address the lack of information about cryptomining's energy use and environmental impacts." The congressional Democrats have asked the EPA and the Department of Energy to require cryptominers to disclose emissions and energy use, noting that regulators know little about the full environmental impact of the industry....
The power demands of the industry are also coming at a cost to consumers, the letter states, citing a study that found cryptomining operations in upstate New York led to a rise in electric bills by roughly $165m for small businesses and $79m for individuals.
The main operator of Texas's grid admitted this week to the Verge that by 2026 crypto mining is set to increase demand on the state's power grid by a whopping 27 gigawatts — or nearly a third of the grid's current maximum capacity.
And an associate professor at Rochester Institute of Technology with a background in electricity system policy warns the site that "The more crypto mining that comes into the state, the higher the residents should expect the electricity prices to become."
But the Guardian also notes there's two problems with this: - The largest US cryptomining companies have the capacity to use as much electricity as nearly every home in Houston, Texas; energy use that is contributing to rising utility bills, according to an investigation by Democratic lawmakers...
- "The results of our investigation ... are disturbing ... revealing that cryptominers are large energy users that account for a significant — and rapidly growing — amount of carbon emissions," the letter states.
"It is imperative that your agencies work together to address the lack of information about cryptomining's energy use and environmental impacts." The congressional Democrats have asked the EPA and the Department of Energy to require cryptominers to disclose emissions and energy use, noting that regulators know little about the full environmental impact of the industry....
The power demands of the industry are also coming at a cost to consumers, the letter states, citing a study that found cryptomining operations in upstate New York led to a rise in electric bills by roughly $165m for small businesses and $79m for individuals.
The main operator of Texas's grid admitted this week to the Verge that by 2026 crypto mining is set to increase demand on the state's power grid by a whopping 27 gigawatts — or nearly a third of the grid's current maximum capacity.
And an associate professor at Rochester Institute of Technology with a background in electricity system policy warns the site that "The more crypto mining that comes into the state, the higher the residents should expect the electricity prices to become."
Crypto mining is for fools (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fourth amendment (Score:3, Insightful)
Any bullshit like this is simply a violation of the 4th amendment. It fails the so called "Katz test." We don't expect the government to monitor your electricity usage and suspect you of a crime simply based on the fact that you use electricity. Even the use of thermal imaging to see if you might be using electricity is banned. See Kyllo v. United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] If this were allowed, anyone with a gaming rig is subject to being SWATted if that's the case. Anyone with a hobby that uses heavy equipment is subject to harassment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The whole idea that they stopped using IR to find grows is dumb anyway. They can always use parallel construction. Use IR one day, then go back to where you found them and gather visual evidence on another. Get rubberstamp warrant by judge on standby, virtually all warrants are granted without any apparent scrutiny. Now you can get any records you want, including getting IR scan evidence.
Crypto-miners will be buying nuclear power plants. (Score:1)
We saw crypto-miners move to places where they could get cheap and reliable electricity from hydroelectric dams. Then they moved to where abandoned coal power plants offered cheap electricity. We saw them make deals with "virtual power plants" to buy excess solar and wind power. The next obvious step is crypto-miners making deals with troubled nuclear power plants to get electricity at discounted prices.
We need more electrical generation capacity in the USA, in Europe, and many other places around the wo
No Authority (Score:3)
The EPA and the DoE don't really have the authority to do this. You would think the Senator from the Great Commonwealth of Massachusetts would know this.
What's that got to do with anything? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Liberals long ago decided that anything they want to do and find some justification for doing is something that should be done by the government. It's an interestingly pernicious mindset, and as a result of its becoming normal, we don't usually notice. Good to see someone else also asking that rude question!
Re: (Score:1)
> don't really have the authority to do this.
Minor correction: they don't nominally have the authority to do this, but:
Liz knows this - she was a Harvard gov't prof who lied about being in a protected class for her advantage, and spoke out against the bankers while always enriching them with her power. Truth and Oath mean nothing to her.
She's always been anti-nuke, just looking for someone else to vilify now.
Because people are starting
It seems to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a problem of price. Many countries don't have problems with crypto miners, many countries don't have problems with people not insulating their houses or driving monster trucks.
But the unfortunate reality is, those are countries where electricity costs actual money rather than that fantasy thing the USA calls the retail cost of energy.
One of my work colleagues complained the other day that he doesn't know what he will do now that petrol was $5/gal and it made me wish MS would implement the ability to pu
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to say it, because I really wish this wasn't necessary, but at some point environmental sanctions are going to have to be an option. Not just for the US, for any country that doesn't clean itself up.
good news for VGA (Score:1)
There ought to be a law against it (Score:2, Insightful)
Crypto mining is entirely parasitic on the nation's economy. I can't imagine any contribution this wasteful activity provides to the prosperity of citizens. It is pure wealth extraction. I suppose you could say that government has no business preventing fools from wasting their money by "investing" in digital tulips, but the trouble is, the wasted energy affects everybody. Energy being burned on crypto mining is energy that can't be spent on worthwhile activities. More money has to be spent on power infrast
They're just trying to shift blame for bad policy (Score:1, Flamebait)
Crypto mining emits no carbon anything. It emits heat, and that's it. Any carbon is emitted by the power plants, and that is as true for power used by crypto miners as it for power used to charge car batteries, which these Democrats want everyone to drive. If they had their way, what woul
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt it (Score:2)
I seriously doubt that any estimate of the power used by cryptomining can have any basis in fact as opposed to fantasy. The fact that it's coming from a far-left paper makes it all the more suspect.
Jevons paradox (Score:2)
While I've long considered Jevons mostly bullshit (household energy consumption has been falling consistently for decades) crypto is certainly the ultimate expression of it in action.
There has got to be better more efficient ways to extract money from the rich.
Why not splash some paint on a canvass, insert technobabble into the caption and slap an outrageous price tag on it. Paint and canvass requires significantly less capital investment than mining rigs.
Ethanol subsidies are worse. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Greedy assholes are plugging in 600W GPUs to mine crypto!
FTFY - BTW, Normal people are plugging in EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
From an environmental standpoint it would be. In fact, the best thing a person could do, environmental-impact wise, would be to castrate themselves or commit suicide, or even take some people with them on the way. Abortions alone have saved billions of tons of carbon emissions, to say nothing of things like the Holodomor, Rwanadan Genocide, Great Leap Forward, the Holocaust, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Like what you are saying is not sick.
Re: (Score:2)
There are people out there who believe it isn't sick
Re: (Score:2)
Those people are sick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not slavery if you consent to getting in the wagie cage
Re: (Score:2)
It's very telling how a topic hit home when the hyperbole goes beyond ridiculous...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no need for you to drive to the grocery store in your fancy-ass $60k EV made of plastic, oil, metal, and rare earth minerals, carrying one human in a car that can seat five. That's greedy of you. It's far better to have rations delivered to everyone's houses at the same time.
Re: Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, the professional cryptocurrency miners are using whole arrays of hardware and not one lonely GPU; And the EVs get charged at night when there's lots of free grid capacity, and are much more efficient to the point it actually reduces emissions and saves energy if you build EVs and then charge them with fossil fuels. They also can run from renewables, unlike dino juice suckers, so they provide more motivation to hasten the switch to wind and solar so that the cars become less polluting. Synfuels ain't practical.
I know this won't change your "mind", but that's no reason not to present the facts.
Re:Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
There's no requirement that EVs charge at night,
But in fact they do. That's when people aren't using their cars. And it's easy, you just set your car "start charging at 11pm".
and everything you said can be applied to crypto.
Nope. You only charge your car until it's ready for the next day, then you stop. You don't make six times as much money if you charge it 24/7 instead of just six hours at night.
Crypto "could" just run at night, but if they only run from, say, midnight to 6am, they will only mine 1/4 as many tokens as running 24/7.
Quick summary, EVs mostly use electricity overnight; cryptocurrency miners use electricity 24/7.
...Do you even know how EVs are charged? Or are you proposing some new law, that people at superchargers and Electrify America chargers wait until peak demand is over?
Yes, I know how EVs are charged. Most people charge at home. Superchargers are for trips, but 90% of car use isn't long distance, it's around your home.
Re: (Score:3)
This actually causes an interesting issue. If everyone fire up the charging at "the exact same time", the grid is not happy. I am sure the software will get some randomness added to smooth out the charger start times.
Re:Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
and MOST people plug it in as soon as they get home
Yes we do, but being plugged in doesn't mean the cars are charging. Certainly mine doesn't. It'll wait until a specific time. My charger actually has the ability to wait for an external signal (from the utility provider) before charging but we don't have that system in place yet.
Rather than looking at others and getting angry with your ignorance, maybe go and ask people how the thing you're angry about works. Don't be the person making assumptions and coming across stupid as a result.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a Tesla charging station right near my house, 8 super chargers. You can see the most popular times right on google. 9am - 9pm is most popular. I went by yesterday at 3pm to shop for food, I saw 4 stations being used.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a Tesla charging station right near my house, 8 super chargers. You can see the most popular times right on google. 9am - 9pm is most popular. I went by yesterday at 3pm to shop for food, I saw 4 stations being used.
Confirmation bias, irrelevant anecdote. If you consider how many EVs there are, how many charging stations there are, and how long it takes to charge, most EVs literally have to be charged at home based on charger availability. Luckily this is not as big a problem as most people imagine, as many people can literally do this from any outlet — they don't put on enough miles in a typical day for it to be a problem.
It's true that there are problems with home charging availability for many people, and they
Re: (Score:2)
Oh fucking calamity. Yeah I saw a Tesla supercharger with 4 cars as well. What's that got to do with the overwhelming majority of EV owners charging at night?
Is it whataboutism, or is it complete ignorance on your part? Or should I post a link to the "why not both" meme?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no requirement that EVs charge at night
Never said otherwise. Learn to read.
and everything you said can be applied to crypto.
Cryptocurrency mining (I refuse to let it have the abbreviation "crypto" when cryptography is already using it, and is literally the crypto in cryptocurrency) could be run only at night, but since it's profitable during the day, that's not what happens. In addition, since there is not solar power available at night, and only limited wind, mining at night increases the use of fossil fuels. During the day, we already approach peak utilization in many cases.
One reasonable ap
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it is not.
What is not what? Use quote
Re: (Score:2)
You weren't able to figure that out with context?
Re: (Score:1)
>>Never said otherwise. Learn to read.
>And the EVs get charged at night when there's lots of free grid capacity
Liar
>since it's profitable during the day, that's not what happens.
I'm talking about what could happen, obviously.
>During the day, we already approach peak utilization in many cases.
Then how can we support everyone having EVs?
Re: (Score:2)
"And the EVs get charged at night when there's lots of free grid capacity,"
Are you sure that is still true? Given that PV goes to zero at sunset, wind drops off a few hours later (at least here it does) and the number of coal plants that have closed down, is that still true? Ten years ago it was true, but is it still?
The places I worked were all continuous operations, they didn't shut down at night nor on weekends. The light manufacturing that did only run one or two shifts largely got sent to China.
And in
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the bulk of EVs are charged at home. Some claim that the emissions are ostensibly higher when charged at night because they aren't charged from solar. But this ignores that there's not enough free capacity during the day to charge all the EVs, so the choice is between charging them at night, or overloading the grid during the day. That seems like an easy choice. In any case, EVs have lower cradle to grave emissions than gassers even when charged from a coal plant, so not only is your bringing up solar
Re: (Score:2)
Look up generation/fuel mix on grid managers like https://spp.org [spp.org] or https://www.misoenergy.org/ [misoenergy.org]
Re: (Score:3)
and are much more efficient to the point it actually reduces emissions and saves energy if you build EVs and then charge them with fossil fuels
I don't think this is necessarily correct. The best case scenario natural gas/oil utility scale turbines is 60%
For EVs there is at the very least...
5% transmission losses
15% wall to wheels losses (ac to dc, dc to batteries, batteries to ac)
10% AC motor losses
This leaves 43% overall best case efficiency for EV powered by state of the art utility scale natural gas.
The best case scenario for coal is 45% efficiency resulting in 32% overall EV efficiency.
The real world efficiency for natural gas electric produc
Re: (Score:3)
For EVs there is at the very least...
5% transmission losses
15% wall to wheels losses (ac to dc, dc to batteries, batteries to ac)
10% AC motor losses
Your numbers are nonsense. Not the wall to wheels, but transmission losses are less than 4% in the USA, and the motor is 95% efficient or better in all cases.
I don't think this is necessarily correct. The best case scenario natural gas/oil utility scale turbines is 60%
Making gasoline is 88% efficient at best, then the ICE is about 20% efficient. (10-30% depending on use.) Pipelines use over 3% of all transportation energy. Then there's the tankers of course. The finished fuels are trucked to stations, there's more loss.
You can only make EVs look inefficient by ignoring gross inefficiencies in the fossil fuel system.
Re: (Score:2)
Making gasoline is 88% efficient at best, then the ICE is about 20% efficient. (10-30% depending on use.) Pipelines use over 3% of all transportation energy. Then there's the tankers of course. The finished fuels are trucked to stations, there's more loss.
Modern internal combustion engines aren’t really 20% efficient. Yes, if you expel the exhaust to absolute zero temperature under zero pressure, but we live in an atmosphere with a thermal barrier to absolute zero. You don’t pay to heat the air to ambient, nor pay to compress it to one atmosphere. We don’t have free unlimited energy because using ambient temperature and pressure to generate the power runs into the inconvenient fact those are the local minimums energetically available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern internal combustion engines arenâ(TM)t really 20% efficient.
Yes, modern internal combustion engines in common use which are used typically are really around 20% efficient at converting energy in fuel to rotational kinetic energy. Some are a bit higher or a bit lower, depending on the vehicle and the driver. If you don't run in the "sweet spot" (of RPM and load) you're not achieving maximum sustained efficiency. EV motors are over 95% efficient at all but the very lowest output conditions, where the least power is being used in any case so a small reduction in effici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You must have completely missed the point of the post.
I didn't. You handwaved in an attempt to ignore reality, where we live. That was the point.
Modern gas engines are around 50-90%+ efficient in terms of the process.
"The process" is a meaningless phrase. What process? And why do you think that's what's relevant? Make sense.
You donâ(TM)t pay to heat the ambient air from absolute zero nor compress it to one atmosphere,
This is irrelevant when discussing percentage of fuel energy which makes it to the crank, full stop. You're attempting to baffle with bullshit. It's not bullshit because it's false, it's bullshit because it's irrelevant.
you canâ(TM)t even discharge those to zero on earth without expending lots of energy.
Is that a clumsy way of saying you can't affordably achieve absolute zero pressure or temper
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't. You handwaved in an attempt to ignore reality, where we live. That was the point.
I hate to tell you this, but it is you who are hand waving and using bits and pieces of anecdotal information without understanding the science. If you are not virtue signaling, and actually want positive change, then you need to know what is real to have any chance of rational acting yielding a positive outcome. The details are below.
"The process" is a meaningless phrase. What process? And why do you think that's what's relevant? Make sense.
Thermodynamic efficiency of engines, being say 20% as you say, is ABSOLUTE. The air going in at temperature is counted against you. Your inputs are the temperature and
Re: (Score:2)
So the main problem with your argument is you have a different standard of efficiency when comparing them and donâ(TM)t understand this.
No. That's bullshit handwaving again. I have one standard. I just explained what that standard is, and why it's what matters. You chose to ignore that, and reality at the same time. We only care about what we can do with the resources at hand, and what produces the best outcome. We don't care if you do or don't like how engine efficiency is measured, because no one cares about anything other than how much of the energy makes it to the road. All that other math is just why that is true, it doesn't change wha
Re: (Score:2)
Incidentally, you are wrong about electric motor efficiency as well. It’s more like 70-95%+ for electric motors, peak power (often too high to sustain) in pmdc motors as we
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your numbers are nonsense. Not the wall to wheels, but transmission losses are less than 4% in the USA, and the motor is 95% efficient or better in all cases.
If you are going to argue cite your sources.
"The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) losses equaled about 5% of the electricity transmitted and distributed in the United States in 2016 through 2020."
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs... [eia.gov]
"The more efficient a motor, the more time an EV will stay on the road. Tesla told Car and Driver that the motor in the Model S has gone from 80 percent efficient to 90 percent, with peak efficiency at 94
Re: (Score:2)
Dino juice? People still think oil comes from dead dinosaurs? Lol.
It's common slang. If you're this easily confused by ubiquitous colloquialisms you must be hilarious to watch interact with others.
Re:Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
Charging EVs at least puts the electricity to good use. Cryptocurrency mining is a resource wasting dumpster fire.
Re: (Score:1)
Charging EVs is actively harmful to the environment.
Let me say that again: it's ACTIVELY harmful for to you charge an electric car. It's consuming energy and producing CO2, even if the grid is run on renewables.
The argument is that the *net negative* impact to the environment is LESS than the net negative impact of you keeping your ICE vehicle and continuing to refill it with gasoline. The presupposition to this argument is that it's not permissible to keep you from traveling from point A to point B, and th
Re: (Score:2)
This measured response seems contradictory to the snarky point you seemed to be making in the original post. Perhaps you were a bit too eager to get that first post.
Re: Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true, you can fix stupid.
It's just illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
There is only serious use for crypto, as far, as I see: it slurps money into the void, opposite to what the money printing machines do. This way no goods have to be made, and may it be kind of counterbalancing resource waste, might it be more efficient. Then, next stop is to have crypto dramatically more efficient, than current energy-burn madness.
Re: (Score:2)
It's enough of knowing much less, than your spell: crypto market slurped a lot from the money pool, while growing in its illusion of value. And that constituted crypto-as-a-product growth. And then it halved or so, and is well-potent to decimate, be banned, be finished. Just because. A whim. A movement of the air. And its value follows, if so - destroying all illusionary prosperity, there was once ago. All, I point to, it being kind of anti-inflation lungs, breathing money value in, while on hype, and then
Re:Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:5, Informative)
Re: Living daily life with a mental contradiction (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
>EVs aren't charging at 25MW, you're a couple of orders of magnitude too high. And the high power charge rates are short duration.
I meant 25,000 W or 25 kW. The batteries typically hold about 75 kWH (Tesla Model 3), though it requires more than that to charge due to various inefficiencies
>GPU mining doesn't produce any tangible value, it's an intentionally inefficient process to artificially generate virtual currency.
It produces tangible value the same way any currency does. It's intentionally ineffic
1.44 kW [Re:Living daily life with a mental...] (Score:4, Informative)
EVs aren't charging at 25MW, you're a couple of orders of magnitude too high. And the high power charge rates are short duration.
I meant 25,000 W or 25 kW.
Confusing MW with KW did not help your credibility.
The batteries typically hold about 75 kWH (Tesla Model 3), though it requires more than that to charge due to various inefficiencies
Charging at home, most people use 120V chargers running at 12 amps, which comes to 1.44 kW. That will charge a Tesla at about 5 miles per hour, which is more than enough for typical American day to day driving to top off overnight.
Re: (Score:2)
>Confusing MW with KW did not help your credibility.
I didn't confuse MW with kW, I made a typo.
Hinging your argument on pretending to not understand what a typo is hurts your own image. Also credibility is irrelevant in this discussion, unless you're only thinking at the lowest level of the debate pyramid.
>Charging at home, most people use 120V chargers running at 12 amps, which comes to 1.44 kW
So a serious mining rig with like 4 top of the line GPUs. And they're saying the environmental impact of plu
Re: (Score:2)
1.44kW ... So a serious mining rig
LOL It's okay man. Your credibility was already shot. You don't need to confuse kW and MW a second time.
Or maybe you don't understand what a mining rig is. Or haven't looked up the definition of "serious". 1.44kW is about as "serious" of a mining rig, as your Lime scooter is a "serious" form of transport for a road trip.
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, 1.44 kW is the power consumption of a serious mining rig: https://www.cnet.com/personal-... [cnet.com]
You're claiming the energy grid is on the brink of collapse because of miners but everyone should switch to EVs that charge at 20,000 W? No wonder you have to rely on typos to convince yourself you're making cogent points in an argument. Your premise is retarded and you're scrambling, and now ignoring points because you don't have counter-arguments. Pathetic
Most don't cripple charge... (Score:3)
I wondered about the "most people use 120V", so I did some looking
Turns out that only 25% of EV owners do level 1(120V) charging [forbes.com] at home.
Which makes sense. It doesn't take that much when you're buying a $30-60k car to install a higher amperage socket in the garage, where many people have their circuit breaker panel anyways.
Even 25A@240V is 4 times the charge rate, and allows for longer commutes, more trips, and things like allowing the power company to load balance using the EV charger(like with water heat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Most cars have only single phase charging, so the max is 240V and 32A or about 7kW when you factor in some overhead to make sure the breaker doesn't trip.
Some cars support more than one phase, either at 11kW or up to 22kW. 22kW cars are not all that common.
Re: (Score:1)
Gold does have intrinsic value - it's shiny and it's yellow and it makes a satisfying clink sound when it's dropped. I also like the way a brick of it looks holding down papers on my desk.
Apparently it's also a good conductor and doesn't corrode, so it's got handy industrial uses too.
Re: (Score:2)
The Mona Lisa has intrinsic value in that the canvas can be flipped over and used to sketch some notes, and the canvas and wooden frame would burn and offer some heat and a nice smokey smell that I enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, as long as we take an internal combustion engine car off the road for every EV we put on the road.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Fun fact, 600W per year is 0.00006% of a nuclear power plant's output and would produce 68 times less CO2 equivalent emissions than the power grid that's currently used to charge most electric vehicles (and which we're routinely told is on the brink of collapse due to crypto mining)
Re: (Score:2)
>Normal people are plugging in 600W GPUs to mine crypto! This is bringing our grid and planet to the BRINK! Our hands are tied, we MUST charge more for electricity!
>Everyone needs to buy $60k+ EVs and plug them into 25,000 kW chargers! Our grid can support it and only by doing this will we save the planet!
Wut
You're confusing continuous power (600W 24x7) and instantaneous power (25KW fast chargers that will charge a car in a few hours).
My EV plugs into my regular household outlet and charges around 30 hours/week at around 1000W. (a little less than that since the last 20% of charging is at a much slower rate than the first 80%, but it's capped at 9A so the max is around 1000W).
So in a week, my EV uses around 30KWh of energy, while the 600W bitcoin miner uses around 100KW, or 3 times as much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: FAKE ARTICLE (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Value on secondary market (Score:2)
I've been hearing stories discouraging people from buying those used video cards because the cards being used for mining puts a lot more strain on them than normal and you don't know how much life is remaining on them.
For a car example, it's like buying a car where you know roughly how old it is, but you don't know whether it was used as a taxi@150k miles/year, or as a retired person's car at 15k/year.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been hearing stories discouraging people from buying those used video cards because the cards being used for mining puts a lot more strain on them than normal and you don't know how much life is remaining on them.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's just shills for the GPU companies who hate the idea that every time the crypto market takes a dump, eBay fills up with unwanted video cards from miners calling it quits. When used for mining, the video cards are generally going to be run conservatively so they don't consume excessive amounts of power or have stability issues. The reality is, buying a second-hand card that was used by a gamer was more likely to have been overclocked and tweaked and messed with so they coul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, it would seem the opposite should be true. Cryptominers routinely undervolt and underclock the cards to use less energy, which of course also reduces the speed and thus the output, but the energy conservation offsets that to create fewer coins per time unit but more coins per power unit.
You might want to ask a miner for details, though. Maybe that's just a story they tell to get people to buy their used GPUs. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to ask a miner for details, though. Maybe that's just a story they tell to get people to buy their used GPUs. :)
I don't know, a miner is likely to tell me what he thinks will maximize the amount I'd pay for his card.
I think I'd like to see some actual mining setups. Like if they want me to invest in such an operation rather than buy their used video cards.
Would still need to dig to see the wear difference between 24x7 operation even undervolted vs like 4 hours/day at standard voltage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We've had ecological issues before cryptocurrency and we'd still have ecological issues if cryptocurrency never existed. It is not an ecological disaster waiting to happen and hyperbole doesn't help make points.