this post was submitted on 01 May 2025
186 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

38624 readers
118 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 101 points 1 week ago (8 children)

New data tells us that mining a single Bitcoin or one BTC costs the largest public mining companies over $82,000 USD, which is nearly double the figure it did the previous quarter. Estimates for smaller organisations say you need to spend about $137,000 to get that single BTC in return. BTC is currently only valued at $94,703 USD, which seems to be a problem in the math department.

Bitcoin mining will always be profitable for the people with the cheapest electricity and largest economies of scale. There is a difficulty adjustment algorithm in the protocol that ensures this. When the price tanks people turn off thier miners, difficulty adjusts downwards, and then it takes less electricity to find a block.

tl;dr title is wrong

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 41 points 1 week ago (1 children)

this is what im always trying to get people to understand. bitcoin is programmed to take more resources to artificially increase in value. its why its so horrible for the environment and why it could never really be used as a currency. Now other coins fix this issue but bitcoin tends to be popular because its fixed. Some even do useful work like gridcoin.

[–] slacktoid@lemmy.ml 20 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Libertarian economic theory failing in front of our very eyes

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] elgordino@fedia.io 31 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yeah this article is woefully uninformed. Author seems to be butt hurt about GPU pricing rather than any serious interest in how the protocol actually works.

[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The quote is actually from the article this one paraphrased and linked to, while leaving out all of the actual, you know, information

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

So wait. You'd have to read the article and not just the headline to know the story?

[–] gonzo-rand19@moist.catsweat.com 5 points 1 week ago (1 children)

No, you'd have to read the article that this one linked to. :b

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 7 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

The headline isn't accurate as usual, but isn't completely wrong either. Anyway, the article you've quoted is more informative than the one I posted, so thanks for that quote.

We're at a point where it's no longer profitable for individual miners, even if we ignore externalities like the cost we're collectively paying due to pollution and carbon emissions.

Mining require increasing amount of energy and resources as time pass, so unless there's a radical change in bitcoin's algorithm or unless energy becomes free, we should expect mining to get non-profitable in more and more situations.

[–] bjorney@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

We're at a point where it's no longer profitable for individual miners

We have been at that point since GPU mining stopped being feasible in 2014, it's just gotten worse. ASICs made it so the only people who could profit off mining were people who could place a wholesale sized order of hardware from bitmain, etc. Anyone else who claimed to be mining profitably was likely someone who was:

  1. buying old hardware 2nd hand (or new hardware at MSRP) and capitalizing on free electricity in their rental
  2. not selling their Bitcoin immediately (they weren't making money from mining, they were making it from speculating)
  3. lived in Quebec and could double dip (North America's cheapest grid + free heating for 8 months of the year)

unless there's a radical change in bitcoin's algorithm

The algorithm already does this though. Every 2016 blocks if it took more than 10 minutes per block, the difficulty of mining bitcoin goes down, not up. This is why every halving event you see a radical drop in difficulty, because at a given kWh you are producing half as many bitcoin - meaning people turned off their miners because it's less profitable. The flipside is the rate of issuance goes down, so there is a lower inflationary effect, and the price of Bitcoin usually also skyrockets (which means eventually these miners re-enter, and difficulty eventually goes back to where it was). It can never get to a point where Bitcoin mining is completely unprofitable unless the price goes to zero, because there will always be a guy with a solar panel and fully paid-off hardware who can mine it for free. Granted, it can get to a point where a lot of people have to take a huge loss on capital expenditures if the price nosedives and never recovers

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] marius@feddit.org 58 points 1 week ago (11 children)

You mean getting paid for using energy is not a working business model? Was about time that the market found that out

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 14 points 1 week ago

Turns out the giant earth heater wasn’t the best business concept.

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Getting paid for using energy is literally every business model.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 49 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

By design, it’s supposed to be barely profitable, so it makes sense it would cross that boundary once in a while. Then some miners leave the network or slow their hash rate, the difficulty is adjusted automatically, and it becomes profitable again. It’s actually a pretty interesting strategy.

Ostensibly, the difficulty depends on how many miners there are on the network. More miners = more difficult. Fewer miners = less difficult. The “difficulty” is just how “lucky” you have to be to hit a successful hash on a block. The block’s hash is based on the previous block + all the transactions you include in your block + a random number you add. That random number is what you change to try to hit a successful hash. If the hash starts with a certain number of zeroes, you have a successful block you can add to the chain, and you’re rewarded with some brand new coin in your wallet (you include that in the transactions in your block). If not, you change the random number and try again. How many times you have to try again is controlled by the leading zeroes requirement. You’re competing with every other miner on the network to find a successful block first.

The amount of new coin constantly goes down as the chain gets longer, until it hits zero and mining doesn’t create new coin. Then, you would charge a fee for including someone’s transaction (a lot of miners already charge a fee). The more zeroes required at the start of the hash, the “harder” it is to mine. The network automatically adjusts how many zeroes are required to keep new blocks being added at a roughly constant rate (one block every ten minutes is the target).

All of this is enforced by the algorithm Bitcoin miners use. If a “rogue miner” submits a block that doesn’t meet these criteria, the other miners just reject the block and don’t add it to their copy of the blockchain. The consensus is what really matters, and no one entity controls a majority of miners. Each miner has their own copy of the entire blockchain, so each miner can validate any block it receives before adding it to the chain.

Fewer miners would mean blocks are being added too slowly at the current difficulty, and the network adjusts to make it easier to hit a successful hash. The network automatically adjusts difficulty every 2,016 blocks (it’s all just math, and it’s part of the Bitcoin algorithm), which is roughly every 2 weeks. So, it should in theory only be not profitable for up to two weeks.

(Please note that this is simplified to the point of being technically wrong, but in principle, that’s how it works. Technically, in a mining pool, you can still get rewarded even if you don’t hit a successful hash. You get rewarded based on the hash rate you provide to the pool, with the understanding that you won’t get the full reward when you hit a successful block. Also, it’s not really about the number of zeroes, but a “target” hash that your hash needs to be “below”. A hash might have the same number of leading zeroes, but not be below the target, so wouldn’t be successful. That’s really unlikely. In practice, this basically means more leading zeroes. If the target got high enough, it can even have no leading zeroes. That would probably require an intergalactic sized network.)

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Also a clue from one of the links is that "German industrial rate customers, cost is $200k/btc". Their industrial rate is $0.25/kwh, and so then their claim is based on 12c/kwh utility rates. Utility rates has pretty much always been cost prohibitive. Wholesales and behind the meter power is certainly an advantage large scale mining uses.

[–] Hirom@beehaw.org 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (11 children)

Thanks for the refresher. I'm aware of the basics, but assumed the difficulty measured by the number of zeros could only increase. Apparently difficulty can decrease, and I've read it's expected to decrease very soon to keep the system running a while longer.

Bitcoin's creator was smart enough to design a system that automatically adjust to remain profitable for several years without intervention, but not smart enough to foresee social and environmental costs.

It's a good example that illustrate why automated systems shouldn't be left running unsupervised, even if it's designed by the best minds with the best of intentions.

[–] The_Caretaker@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

There are other methods of operating a blockchain, besides proof of work, which are much more energy efficient. Think of Bitcoin being like a coal fired power-plant and some other cryptos based on proof of stake being akin to solar panels.

[–] Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 1 week ago

but also proof of stake is just taking off the mask and outright saying that rich people control the network

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 47 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This is exactly as designed. Bitcoin mining is intended to becomes less profitable the more people do it, using market forces to control the amount of mining that's being done. Headlines like this are kind of ridiculous.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 27 points 1 week ago

It remains profitable for scammers who use malware botnets consisting of other peoples computing power and electricity.

[–] kittenroar@beehaw.org 25 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

bitcoin mining hasn't been profitable for a long time. Like, a decade or so.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 6 points 1 week ago (1 children)

...but you could buy specialized hardware for it

[–] kittenroar@beehaw.org 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

True, but the outlay of cost for the hardware was higher than the value of Bitcoin you would receive.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 3 points 6 days ago (2 children)

The power bill is more of a concern. Eventually it'll pay itself back

[–] vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

it has to pay for itself faster than it becomes unprofitale. Which is never, now

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 1 points 6 days ago

I know, not the point

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Go for that moonshot bro, your creditors will be happy to wait I'm sure.

[–] Boomkop3@reddthat.com 2 points 6 days ago

Just clarifying the idea. I don't support crime by holding up such networks

[–] MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

In theory if you didn't have heating you could get a cheap used machine and run it and the revenue might cover the cost of heating and you get a free to run space heater.

[–] psx_crab@lemmy.zip 17 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Not if you outright steal the electricity.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 14 points 1 week ago
[–] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It's actually been that way for years outside of places with subsidized/corrupt pricing.

[–] kubica@fedia.io 13 points 1 week ago (4 children)

Now the prices of GPUs will go back to normal right?... right?

[–] kbal@fedia.io 50 points 1 week ago

Bitcoin mining hasn't had anything to do with GPUs since 2014. Ether, since 2022. It's the AI people you're looking for.

[–] LumpyPancakes@lemm.ee 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I don't think GPU are used for bitcoin any more? You need ASICs to be able to hope for any return on investment.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] four@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago

Hey, sorry to break it to you, but there's this thing called "AI"...

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

In the future, games will renders about nine pixels and it will all be upscaling.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Atari games are going to make a huge comeback

load more comments
view more: next ›