Hatorade
A nice asshole.
- 9,111
- 8,470
Makes sense...fuck weed, fuck them womens rights...fuck your electricity options and your power grid. We gonna be the first to get into digital currency.
- 1
Bitcoins/Litecoins/Virtual Currencies
- Thread starter Tripamang
- Start date
Makes sense...fuck weed, fuck them womens rights...fuck your electricity options and your power grid. We gonna be the first to get into digital currency.
Tmac
Adventurer
- 10,561
- 18,641
Weed and women's right? This is the crypto thread, not the woke retards thread.
In the spirit of the aktual thread topic, this is good for Bitcoin.
Flobee
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,045
- 3,545
I'll leave the first two aside and address the third. Bitcoin has been a net positive for the Texas power grid. That's unanimously accepted by everyone involved. The flexibility of Bitcoin miners (can turn or on or off instantly) makes it economical for the grid to run a higher base load and thus have the ability to adapt to increase power requirements from the grid.
Bitcoin makes the power grid more resilient.
- 1
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 21,370
- 15,288
Tmac
Adventurer
- 10,561
- 18,641
Um wat?
Basically, Bitcoin becomes hackable soon? Why not my bank account? It has way less encryption, lol.
Khane
Got something right about marriage
- 21,370
- 15,288
Why do you think your bank account has way less encryption? You believe that Bitcoin has proprietary security that is leaps and bounds ahead of our financial sector?
Really?
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 20,900
- 17,781
The "Bitcoin is saving the grid" narrative is way more marketing than reality. Yes, miners can curtail load quickly. But the reason they need to curtail is because they're drawing massive amounts of power in the first place. They're not adding resilience out of charity, they're getting paid to turn off because they're a major source of discretionary demand.
If you remove miners, the grid doesn't suddenly become fragile. ERCOT existed long before Bitcoin mining and managed peak events without a single ASIC in sight. What's changed is that Bitcoin miners inserted a huge, optional load and now get compensated for not using it during stress. That's not "making the grid more resilient," that's being paid as a flexible burden.
The higher baseload argument is also selective. A grid doesn't need Bitcoin miners to justify infrastructure expansion - it needs predictable demand. Miner demand is only "predictable" as long as BTC price stays high enough to justify their operations. If BTC tanks, miners unplug instantly, which means the "baseload expansion" justification evaporates just as fast.
Arden
Vyemm Raider
- 3,039
- 2,333
if Shor’s algorithm ever becomes practically dangerous, your bank account (as it is now) would be toast long before your Bitcoin wallet is.
The biggest realistic danger for BTC is actually Satoshi’s wallets. His wallets are basically the world's biggest quantum honeypots
Edit: gotta point this out- both bank accounts and active bitcoin wallets are relatively easy to Q proof. Dead wallets like Satoshi’s that have a known public key are another matter.
- 1
Flobee
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 3,045
- 3,545
Go look at a hashrate chart, yes some miners unplug but most keep going. Price drops don't significantly impact hashrate. A grid needs demand, Bitcoin mining is ideal demand.
Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing? This isn't controversial at all.