Bitcoin miners have entered the red as it now costs $88,000 to mint a $69,000 bitcoin

[aizuchi@hachyderm.io]

@rudy_paul200 @campuscodi careful
World leaders are saying “hold my beer” even now

[mogul@hachyderm.io]

@alexlubertozzi @fabrice @campuscodi "The answer is simple: Volume."
https://youtu.be/KodqIPMbyUg?si=Z54922Cb3kXpjozp

[rudy_paul200@mastodon.social]

@aizuchi @campuscodi Exactly. It feels like we’re living through the 'sequel' that no one asked for. History repeats itself, but this time it feels like it’s on fast-forward with the volume turned all the way up!

[bebadefabo@mastodon.social]

@campuscodi only if you aren't mining with renewable energy sources. Miners who took the hit a few years ago to invest in renewable energy are still in the green.

[baardhaveland@snabelen.no]

@notyourfanboy @RegGuy @campuscodi

Sounds almost like they don't believe in the hype...

[w_b@mastodon.world]

@campuscodi

When is the whole scam going to shit the bed?

#scam #shitcoin

[burritosommelier@techhub.social]

@mcc well that’s a whole mechanism I wasn’t aware of, thanks for the info about that!

I was mostly looking into price points and when is it no longer cost effective, but I never saw that mentioned or taken into account

[mcc@mastodon.social]

@BurritoSommelier bitcoin has so many mechanisms, just an absurd convoluted number of mechanisms

[mlanger@mastodon.world]

@campuscodi @JSteven GOOD.

[carnildo@indieweb.social]

@Robsonde @campuscodi ASICs are so much more power-efficient than GPUs that very little mining is done on hacked computers. It still happens because it's pure profit, but it's only a tiny portion of the total network hashrate.

[utf_7@mastodon.social]

@pier @campuscodi

should've used boinc and gridcoin. you also dont earn money, but at least the solved tasks help real world problems

[cholling@bytes.programming.dev]

@campuscodi (Plays "You Suffer" by Napalm Death)

[desirable_dialogue@ni.hil.ist]

@mcc @campuscodi
Yes difficulty got adjusted.
Miners can have incentives to temporarily mine at a loss.
If you have an (temporary) adversary that depends on immediate cash flow with their mining activities, you can drive their mining operations temporarily off, which gives you a higher share in the market, which you can use to reduce the selling pressure, making your own holdings more valuable.
If this was the reason, idk, I'm just rambling.
All I know is that in this shitcoin economy there are lots of (semi) hidden incentives. Looking forward to the day they can't gain new cash flowing into their scam.

[desirable_dialogue@ni.hil.ist]

@w_b @campuscodi
Never. At least not all together. Profits through wash trading and money laundering are to strong of an incentive and shitcoins serve that market to well.

[floe@hci.social]

@Robsonde @campuscodi I don't think you'll get far with that approach today, the hashrate of any normal machine is minuscule compared to the dedicated hardware that professional miners use. Maybe if you have a whole botnet of hacked servers...

[lritter@mastodon.gamedev.place]

@campuscodi so many uninformed takes ITT.

1) mining runs on specialised ASICs. memory/hdd shortages do not phase them.

2) the plan was always that minting income would transition to transaction fees. that this is happening now was to be expected: too much energy is spent, because too many players compete. we all knew that.

3) this correction drives down energy expenditure, and favors renewable energy infrastructure (one third is already hydro, better than world industry average)

[bws@social.linux.pizza]

@makja @fabrice @campuscodi that's the joke

[bent0_b0x@norden.social]

@aceade
* stored for later use *

@campuscodi

[bent0_b0x@norden.social]

@rudy_paul200 @aizuchi I guess that tulip version is called "Triffid" 🤭

@campuscodi

[shivjm@mastodon.social]

@campuscodi Something something this is good for Bitcoin.