Texas Cryptomining Outfit Earns More From Idling Rigs Than Digging Bitcoin (theregister.com) 161
Bitcoin mining outfit Riot Platforms earned $31.7 million from Texas power authorities last month for curtailing operations -- far more than the value of the Bitcoin it mined in the same period. The Register reports: In a press release yesterday, Riot said it produced 333 Bitcoin at its mining operations in Rockdale, Texas, which would have been worth just shy of $9 million on August 31. All the cash earned from those energy credits, on the other hand, equates to around 1,136 Bitcoin, Riot CEO Jason Les said in the company's monthly update. "August was a landmark month for Riot in showcasing the benefits of our unique power strategy," Les said. "Riot achieved a new monthly record for Power and Demand Response Credits ... which surpassed the total amount of all Credits received in 2022. "These credits significantly lower Riot's cost to mine Bitcoin and are a key element in making Riot one of the lowest cost producers of Bitcoin in the industry," Les said.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) operates a demand response program that allows big energy consumers, like Riot, to earn power credits for using less of it for operations and selling power back to the grid, as well as additional credit for being enrolled in its demand response programs. As we reported in August of last year, the company earned $9.5 million in credits during a July 2022 heatwave as well -- still far less than it earned in Texas's hottest August on record this year.
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) operates a demand response program that allows big energy consumers, like Riot, to earn power credits for using less of it for operations and selling power back to the grid, as well as additional credit for being enrolled in its demand response programs. As we reported in August of last year, the company earned $9.5 million in credits during a July 2022 heatwave as well -- still far less than it earned in Texas's hottest August on record this year.
For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Informative)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
It's even worse than that. It's giving free money to people who do nothing. Or, as Republicans would say, welfare queens.
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
It's even worse than that. It's giving free money to people who do nothing. Or, as Republicans would say, welfare queens.
So, it's like agricultural policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not wrong but also not entirely equivalent because people need food to live so by it's nature the food market is naturally going to be distorted so interference or subsidies or regulation is warranted to some degree, we just can argue where those lines and measures should be.
Re: (Score:2)
Ag subsidies also have multiple purposes. Some is to keep prices up if there is a glut, some is to encourage diversification (ie, stop the monoculture that helped create the dust bowl), and some is pork to get people to vote for you. Pork subsidies are often pork.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if the miners didn't exist (or were conveniently blown to smithereens), then that excess power wouldn't have to have been graciously returned in the first place.
I don't see paying them millions not to waste power as a "win", no matter how fast they can switch off those servers.
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
It's even worse than that. It's giving free money to people who do nothing. Or, as Republicans would say, welfare queens.
Nonononononono, it's only "welfare" in Blue states. In Red states it's "Freedom, Patriot and Lollipop subsidies", that way no-one has to admit that far more welfare goes to red states.
Although if Texas has the money to pay off Cryptominers, surely they'd have the fix their electrical grid so it doesn't fail whenever it gets a bit nippy over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More like freedumb subsidies.
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:4, Insightful)
Welfare on the scale of a family needing to eat is bad. Welfare on the scale of shoveling millions into the pockets of those who have plenty is pretty much operating procedure 101 for the Republicans. Gotta keep the top lush so that we can get that trickle-down shit flowing. It's only been forty years or so. Should start any time now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: For a State that hates govt interference (Score:2)
Re: For a State that hates govt interference (Score:2)
Worse than doing nothing. They are holding the grid hostage and getting paid whenever they take a break.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite..
If they hadn't been using the power they were, it would not have been available on the grid to begin with for them to shed.
An equivalent would be Nestle promising to buy up all the extra water from your desalination plant when there's an excess, but not taking any when there's a drought. (Ignoring the evils of bottled water..)
They both provide a financial incentive to deliver the extra output while also being flexible enough to back off when needed.
Re: (Score:2)
"If they hadn't been using the power they were, it would not have been available on the grid to begin with for them to shed."
Say what? A typical gas-fired plant has 500 MW of capacity, regardless of whether or not some idiot is wasting some of that power burning bits.
If the miners didn't exist, the plant simply wouldn't be running at full capacity.under normal circumstances.
All shedding the miners did was let the utility company divert some of that wasted energy to homes that needed more A/C than normal.
And
Re: (Score:3)
If you rent a T3 Internet pipe and don't use it a third of the time, you're still obligated to pay for the pipe.
If you buy a hamburger in a buy-1-get-1-free deal but drive off before they give you the second burger, you don't get to ask for a refund.
So why, if you've told the electricity company that they must secure you a pipe that can carry X and that they must generate Y, must taxpayers be obliged to pay you for unused pipe and unused power? They are obliged, under contract, to generate it and nobody els
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Insightful)
In this scenario the State's energy providers / regulators don't want Riot to use electricity at certain times because the state providers aren't able to generate enough electricity to meet all demand. Riot is being offered cash to decrease its power consumption, this isn't Riot being unable to use power and asking for cashback.
It's actually a very logical idea, although I can't speak for the Texas implementation, because the alternatives are: > Maintain the ability to produce so much power that you never, or virtually never, have more demand than supply. The cost of maintaining the ability to quickly cover your once a year / two-year / five year peaks will be vastly higher than covering everything except your top 10 peaks of the year or similar. Keep in mind that in practice this means having to keep multiple conventional powerplants at a state of perpetual readiness just to use them for a few hours a year, or it means investing in huge amounts of battery capacity which would also only be used a few times a year. > Have power cuts, rolling or otherwise, to decrease power usage down to supply when their are peaks. Not suprisingly this option is not at all popular.
Having a large energy consumer that is willing to decrease consumption at short notice for a relatively small amount of money is a great option for managing a grid if it means you can avoid paying for a coal powerplant to be kept ready and staffed just to turn it on for 40 hours a year.
Re: (Score:2)
I know /. is all about ridiculous analogies but as funny as they are they really don't add much insight.
In this scenario the State's energy providers / regulators don't want Riot to use electricity at certain times because the state providers aren't able to generate enough electricity to meet all demand. Riot is being offered cash to decrease its power consumption, this isn't Riot being unable to use power and asking for cashback.
This would make sense if were were talking about actually productive industrial users that had to scale down their consumption.
Miners should be told to fuck off because they're useless wastes of energy.
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, I agree that this looks good on paper. I'm not posting a comment to debate this premise. I'm simply advising that we include a projection of this arrangement into the future. Beyond the immediate term.
Crypto-asset mining emissions are contributing 140 million metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere each year [whitehouse.gov]. Electricity usage surges due to increased temperatures due to global warming due to crypto-asset mining. Rinse and repeat.
I wouldn't mind this arrangement if the additional power usage brought by crypto mining sponsored carbon-free energy production like nuclear or renewables. But as you accurately describe, these contracts with ERCOT are supporting increased usage of fossil-fuel power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:4, Insightful)
I know /. is all about ridiculous analogies but as funny as they are they really don't add much insight.
In this scenario the State's energy providers / regulators don't want Riot to use electricity at certain times because the state providers aren't able to generate enough electricity to meet all demand. Riot is being offered cash to decrease its power consumption, this isn't Riot being unable to use power and asking for cashback.
It's actually a very logical idea, although I can't speak for the Texas implementation, because the alternatives are:
> Maintain the ability to produce so much power that you never, or virtually never, have more demand than supply. The cost of maintaining the ability to quickly cover your once a year / two-year / five year peaks will be vastly higher than covering everything except your top 10 peaks of the year or similar. Keep in mind that in practice this means having to keep multiple conventional powerplants at a state of perpetual readiness just to use them for a few hours a year, or it means investing in huge amounts of battery capacity which would also only be used a few times a year.
> Have power cuts, rolling or otherwise, to decrease power usage down to supply when their are peaks. Not suprisingly this option is not at all popular.
Having a large energy consumer that is willing to decrease consumption at short notice for a relatively small amount of money is a great option for managing a grid if it means you can avoid paying for a coal powerplant to be kept ready and staffed just to turn it on for 40 hours a year.
The alternative is to fix the current pricing model.
In North America large consumers are typically charged on a peak pricing model. For instance, you might pay $0.15/kWh for normal usage (maybe less since they're a big customer), but they record your peak usage for the month, and for that peak usage you pay something like $45/kWh.
I have no idea what the Texas numbers are, but those numbers are based on real figures I've seen elsewhere.
Basically that means if you ran the machines for 15 minutes, then pulled the breaker and shut it down for the rest of the month, your power bill would still be ~41% as large as if you ran those machines 24*7.
The peak power model works well for the part when infrastructure needs to be sized based on what those big industrial customers might decide to do at their peak.
The problem is they have no incentive to save outside of the peaks since their daily power is extremely cheap by comparison.
That's why the bitcoin miners don't care too much about the high demand period, because even if they have a decent amount of rate exposure it doesn't really affect their power bill.
The solution is to tweak the billing formula, give them some more exposure to the power cost during periods of high demand, they'll shut down the servers without needing to be paid to do so.
Re: (Score:3)
Just be honest. You hate crypto and are pissed to see this working exactly the way it was intended after hating on the notion.
Thanks to these offers to miners Texas may well just sail through a record heatwave not seen since 1980 without any brownouts and that would have staggered the national grid if they weren't independent and deregulated.
"If you rent a T3 Internet pipe and don't use it a third of the time, you're still obligated to pay for the pipe."
Yes, but they aren't only using it a third of the time
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they reserved the capacity, and then resold it when it was fiscally advantageous for them to do so. Dunno why so many people get boners for middlemen tho.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, they reserved the capacity, and then resold it when it was fiscally advantageous for them to do so."
Right.
"Dunno why so many people get boners for middlemen tho."
I don't know but ERCOT is the middleman here, not the mining company. In the meantime the mining company consumed power as it went and paid for that power with mining. Their demand increased market pressure until it became profitable for someone to add capacity and reduce that pressure... unlike the other metaphors, this capacity wouldn't be
Re: (Score:2)
Because you blithering buffoon, they WOULD use the electricity for operations, but under high load scenarios, whether because of the heat of summer driving up AC usage or the various renewables shitting the bed and cutting total capacity as happened last winter, they voluntarily curtail them so there's enough electricity to power other things.
Re: (Score:2)
or the various renewables shitting the bed and cutting total capacity as happened last winter
Assumes facts not in evidence. Show your proof.
Hint: if you're talking about the Texas freeze, that was the fault of not winterizing their infrastructure as was recommended the PREVIOUS TWO TIMES THIS HAPPENED IN THE LAST 30 YEARS. And I bring sources to back my assertion. [texastribune.org]
Dan Woodfin, a senior director at ERCOT, echoed that sentiment Tuesday.
“It appears that a lot of the generation that has gone offline today has been primarily due to issues on the natural gas system,” he said during a Tuesday call with reporters.
Stop spreading bullshit lies being spoon-fed to your by lying shitbag politicians that are trying to cover their own ass for making shitty policy that gets people dead from completely preventable causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, no.
This is more like you rent a T3, but the ISP is oversubscribed and is going to get squeezed, so they go to their customers that use the most bandwidth and offer them a rebate / discount if they voluntarily decrease traffic.
Or like a hamburger shop offering a BOGO deal, but selling far more hamburgers then they actually have, so they begin refunding customers that they won't be able to deliver a hamburger to, much less both.
You are looking at this without factoring in scarcity. Yes, they contracted
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:5, Interesting)
Bitcoin miners figured out how to landlord energy. Good gawd we're so doomed.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I had a Bitcoin mining farm so I could threaten to turn it on and get paid by the government not to. (Am I misunderstanding how this works?)
Re:For a State that hates govt interference (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
Indeed.
I would go on to say that anytime someone is getting paid to NOT engage in some economic activity it strongly suggests the regulatory environment is broken. I'll acknowledge there could exist some exceptions to that rule like say paying business to stay closed during an epidemic for a limited time. However I think payments in exchange for any kind of reduced or non-activity should trigger HARD looks at the policies and forces behind them
Re: (Score:3)
It's Texas. What ain't grift is graft, and vice versa.
Their whole electrical system is designed to enable egregious rent-seeking, which adds absolutely nothing to the economy.
What's bananas is that in much of the state (all the places where you'd want to live, really) the property taxes are so severe that given your overall tax burden you might as well live in California. I know a guy who lives in Travis county and has a pool, his taxes are higher than they would be here. For the privilege of having shit we
Re: For a State that hates govt interference (Score:2)
A couple years ago, I ran the numbers between CA and TX mortgages. Turns out homes are pretty close to price parity over a 30 year mortgage. The difference is in CA, you're left with way more equity, while that money all goes to the government in TX.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say giving a bitcoin miner millions in essentially free cash is gratuitous interference in the market.
I'd call it 'voluntary extortion', except that the taxpayers who ultimately fund this kind of crap have little or no say in the matter.
Re: For a State that hates govt interference (Score:2)
They are paying to timeshift their energy production. The miners essentially are funding fixed infrastructure costs when they're running, and then collecting credits when they stop. That's de rigueur for big energy contracts. The only thing that makes it "news" is the word "Bitcoin".
Re: (Score:3)
Blackmail (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just figured out a way for Texas to save hundreds of millions of $$$ - ban bitcoin mining in the state.
Who do I talk to about this idea?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the very sick and elderly. Statistically they'd probably be the ones who died when the grid couldn't keep up with the record demand this summer.
This is an incentive program to utilize bitcoin to pay for expanding the grid capacity... they have this incentive on purpose, they sometimes NEED that extra capacity and the other 99.99% of the time this program gets the mining company to pay the bill. The rest of the time, the market pays the bill due to the higher rates collected at time of high demand.
Re: (Score:2)
Riot has it on their site: https://www.riotplatforms.com/... [riotplatforms.com]
August 2023 they produced 333 BTC, sold 300 of them and got $8.6M, but also got $24.2M and $7.4M compensation for not using power some of the time.
OTOH, in July, they mined 410 bitcoins, sold 400 of them for $12.1M, but only got $6M and $1.8M compensation for not using power some of the time.
In May 2023 they mined 676BTC, sold 600 of them for $16.5M, but only got $0.5M and $2.3M compensation.
So yeah, they got more money as compensation in August th
That's the Texas "free market" for ya. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:That's the Texas "free market" for ya. (Score:4, Interesting)
Not charging enough (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Texas is becoming uninhabitable unless you have air conditioning. 40C is not survivable for some people.
Unfortunately that means high electrical demand on hot days, while also causing heat related problems for some generators. Texas' lack of good interconnects with other states doesn't help.
The obvious solution is massive solar farms, and better insulated homes. The former is disliked by the ruling party, the latter is too socialist to even consider.
Re: (Score:2)
I always wonder why places likeTexas haven't already gone all in on solar panels ? If only on home roofs to run domestic AC. When's the sun's making it hot enough to need AC then there must be plenty of solar energy to harvest ?
Then I remember it's America. So corporate interests will have bought laws to prevent people putting panels up and keep them paying for their electrickery :)
Re: (Score:2)
I heard that's exactly what happened. There are hoops to jump through to have grid connected solar, so much so that some people keep the entire solar/battery system off-grid.
Batteries that charge directly from solar are quite affordable now, and you save a lot of money by not having to connect them to the grid. You can then just plug a window air conditioner into the battery.
Re: Not charging enough (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter if you "lead" - (a) because Texas can generate more for less effort, they damn well aught to lead in absolute terms, and (b) because it's about generating enough, it's not a race but a requirement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They ARE... they lead the nation.
Re: (Score:3)
What matters is not whether they lead the nation - that's irrelevant, given the stats. It would be only marginally relevant if you looked at what they did once space, sun/wind, etc, were all factored out so that you saw actual effort put in.
What REALLY matters, though, is whether you're doing enough. And it's pretty clear nobody in the US is doing enough.
Re:Not charging enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? Does Texas owe you something we aren't aware of?
We all owe each other sustainability. That is the price of peace.
If the system crashes then it will destroy us all, but first there will be war over what resources remain.
If Texas cannot sustain their grid, and therefore people cannot live there because they will die of heat exhaustion, or freeze to death, both of which happen in Texas, then they will go to other states and become a drain on them just like Texans claim is happening with the people who move to Texas. They will export their indigents and then California will have to pay for their care.
Re: (Score:3)
State Renewable MW Cap % Renewable
Texas 136,827 26.60%
Minnesota 17,170 28.30%
Nebraska 11,998 29.60%
Nevada 13,091 31.20%
Colorado 19,481 33.80%
California 69,488 34.70%
North Dakota 16,754 37.20%
New Mexico 16,078 40.50%
Maine 4,967 42.20%
Oklahoma 37,694 44.50%
Kansas 29,429 46.60%
Vermont 1,058 50.50%
South D
Re: (Score:2)
Get me a per capita figure. Texas is biiiiig.
Re: (Score:2)
proof that electricity markets are a scam
Re: (Score:2)
It is dumb.
If I commission someone to generate some art for me, but then don't want it, would you feel obligated to pay me for not having "used" the resource I contracted for? After all, the art can now be sold to someone else, right? Or if I buy an O8 private Internet connection but only run it at T1 speeds, is the teleco obligated to refund me for the difference?
Obviously no, in both cases. Then if I commission a pipe that can carry X power and commission the power companies to generate X extra, why shoul
Re: (Score:2)
"would you feel obligated to pay me for not having "used" the resource I contracted for?"
It would hardly matter how I 'felt' about it, you bought the art, it belongs to you not me.
Re: (Score:3)
Lets say I build a facility, get it wired up and sign a contract for power and use that power. However, sometimes there is huge demand for power and the grid cannot keep up. In such cases, the power company comes to me and asks if I could shot down my equipment and NOT use the power for a while. I am not going to o it for free, so they pay me for the time when I cannot use power.
From the perspective of a power company. Electricity demand sometimes has high peaks and currently it is not possible to store eno
Re: (Score:3)
The loudest commentors are residential customers who have specifically been put i
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever gone to a hardware store to buy some supplies for some home repairs or building or whatever? Usually what you do is buy more than you think you need, then return the leftovers. Maybe you aren't sure what colour hinges your significant other would like on that new door so you buy the silver, gold and black ones, use one colour and return the others.
Same thing here. What's missing is how much the bitcoin miners paid for their electricity in the first place. The hardware store is happy to give yo
The Bitcoin miners dug themselves into (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Leave it to Texas (Score:2, Funny)
To provide a bigger and more profitable scam than Cryptomining.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a good example from a few years back in Arizona where they were offering massive tax credits if people would out
Re: (Score:2)
"almost any" is a vast over simplification due to confirmation bias. The truth is, we hear about poorly crafted legislation whose intent is circumvented because - that's news. Plenty of regulatory market policy works as intended, but it's boring and never gets play outside of industry focused communication channels.
Re: (Score:2)
parasites (Score:2, Insightful)
those people are useless burden on society. they should be made illegal and terminated.
Texans are morons. (Score:5, Insightful)
Demand response (Score:5, Informative)
What's going on here is that the infrastructure has to be sized for the peak energy use. There's a market for energy generation, and when use gets close to capacity the price for generating electricity goes up. So there are these demand response programs where instead of paying companies to turn on more generators, they'll pay companies that use a certain amount of electricity to shut down operations during peak times and pay them as if they generated the equivalent amount of electricity. This makes sense on the face of it.
I've been a part of these demand response programs before, and unfortunately they create perverse incentives. You get paid for the difference between the energy consumption you had before the request, and the energy consumption after the request. But they give you a heads up hours earlier. One company I knew about has a load tester (a big outdoor heater used to put load on a generator to test it after doing maintenance on it). They're incentivized to turn on the heater in the two hours before the demand response time, and then they can turn it off and collect payment as if they were generating that much power for the duration of the peak, at peak energy rates.
So in TFA, this is a company that's using electricity to produce something (bitcoin) that has no intrinsic value. They do this by consuming computing hardware and enormous amounts of electricity. Then they get paid enormous sums to turn it off during peak times. It's just absurd. Using this strategy, a company with nothing but banks of outdoor electric heaters could make huge sums of money by heating the outdoors for a few hours every morning where the peak energy usage was projected to be high, and turning them off when asked.
Re: (Score:2)
Riot is taking advantage of the flip-side with a contract that effectively gives them credits for as much as 8X for what they are NOT using at ke
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll have a hard time trading smokes these days, there just aren't that many users out there anymore.
Tulip bulbs grow into pretty flowers but have no functional use. Bitcoin is a decentralized system that will still work when the banks collapse. Yes it needs power and some kind of mesh network to work but there won't really be no power or electronics in your apocalypse, there will be no centralized power... individuals will be rigging up power generation solutions of some kind pretty much everywhere and e
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think everyone with weapons is going to organize together in some sort of unified singular group you are delusional. There will be more than one group, they'll need to trade with each other, there will be trade within those groups as well. The barter system will give way to a return to money soon enough and respect for and protection of personal property and property ownership will be a thing first within these groups and between these groups as they begin to establish trade.
Ultimately, destruction i
Re: (Score:2)
cigarettes become the actual medium of exchange.
Wrong C-word. It's going to be cartridges. Mostly in 9mm and .308, since those are the dominant calibers in the USA now. Honorable mention for .22 LR, that can be the fifty-cent piece.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin has exactly as much intrinsic value as a dollar bill - that is to say: none whatsoever. A dollar bill costs money to print but its sole value is in what it represents. Bitcoin costs *FAR* more money/energy to "make" but in the end still has no value other than what it represents, which happens to be a wildly volatile approximation of accepted fiat currencies, which are still fundamentally (since the drop of the gold standard) a collective fiction.
Reference: https://cointelegraph.com/news... [cointelegraph.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Government ineptitude or outright scam? (Score:3)
Tulips on one end, free government cash on the other end. I never thought I'd see the day we reached this level of government ineptitude (or corruption).
Re: (Score:3)
not general government everywhere; it's TEXAS where they are big on corruption, it's a tradition.
Re: (Score:3)
I never thought I'd see the day we reached this level of government ineptitude
Everything is bigger in Texas.
Fuck 'em (Score:3)
Here's a demand response program: for large scale, complete wastes of power like Bitcoin at a time when the power grid is close to capacity, we simply cut their power. We cut their power first. Before houses, before hospitals, before anything else, we cut ancillary services with Bitcoin mining. No paying them.
Re: (Score:2)
Texans (Score:2)
I know you've had some complaints about high power prices and grid instability.
But I hope that now you can take heart in the fact that you're paying the owners of large-scale bitcoin operations.
I still don't understand why... (Score:2)
Over 3 months free electricity (Score:2)
New mining rig design below! (Score:2)
|----resistor----|
Who's in on this project?
Pay them ... (Score:2)
Just charge them the same as other customers (Score:2)
ERCOT already has dynamic pricing where they raise their rates to discourage use. For instance, during the February 2021 blizzard, electric rates went from $2/MWh to over $9000.
Just raise their rates until they cry uncle and turn off their wasteful machines.
That was in Catch-22 IIRC (Score:4, Insightful)
Same scheme with agrarian subsidies, Major Major's father got paid to not grow alfalfa, used the income to buy more land and not grow even more alfalfa.
Re: (Score:2)
nah... corruption
Re: (Score:2)
Bitcoin + Texas ... what could possibly go wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
The economics in the article are pretty misleading. It is using the value of BTC mined in the same period as they earned the credits for not consuming power. In a month where they earned record amounts for not using power it shouldn't be surprising that they produced considerably less BTC. The figures don't make clear what proportion
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations on being the first person to this point in the comments who actually understands what is happening here.
ERCOT had the capacity it needed when it needed it most thanks to this arrangement, paid for courtesy of those who needed the power when they needed it and otherwise paid for by Cryptocurrency. This isn't bad news, it is working exactly as intended for the benefit of both the state and miners. This is a big win, not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not bad for the world if BTC generation slows down. In fact, it is good for it.
Nobody should be getting paid when there is not enough power to do their unsustainable thing. Rather, if they are allowed to do it at all, they should simply have to accept when they cannot do it and not get paid for it. The only time it makes sense to pay someone not to do something is when we need them to get paid so that they can keep doing it when needed. Hence, some agricultural subsidies are useful, for small agribusi
Re: (Score:3)
"if they are allowed to do it at all, they should simply have to accept when they cannot do it and not get paid for it."
The arrogance of thinking you have some sort of right to allow or disallow the actions of others... moreover dictate the terms under which they are willing to invest their money.
"It is not bad for the world if BTC generation slows down. In fact, it is good for it."
That actually isn't a fact and there is nothing unsustainable about BTC mining.
"Large agribusiness doesn't need the help to sta
In terms of Autos (Score:2)
Larry said you would supply 1200 widgets per day say from Sept 1 2022- Sept 1 2023. Larry get to the point in Aug 15 2023 and Larry cannot ship widgets. The auto company cannot build customers truck because widget does not arrive Just in Time on Aug 16.
How much of refund does Larry own Auto company in a penalty.... much more than the cost of missing widgets. They got union members standing a