Ethereum Crypto Mining Performance Benchmarks On The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti

[Weasel]

So don't ban the individual (me) from shooting you in the face

I'm not going to repeat and address this again, seeing as I've already debunked something that drops my brain cells. I don't want to turn retarded.

Stay in your fantasy land.

[sjekkel]

I'm not going to repeat and address this again, seeing as I've already debunked something that drops my brain cells. I don't want to turn retarded.

Stay in your fantasy land.

Was that a convenient enough excuse to ignore the rest?

[Weasel]

Was that a convenient enough excuse to ignore the rest?

Because they're the exact same thing?

And while I'll address these now, I won't do so again in the future unless you come up with something new or at least show that you read what I say instead of repeating the same stuff.

I'll keep it brief, you can piece it together yourself.

So don't ban the individual (me) from shooting you in the face, ban guns if they are used to shoot others in the face?

Gun is your property (or rented/stolen, let's ignore that case and keep it simple), bullet also. Let's also make it less dramatic and violent and just say "shoot your PC".

My PC = my property. You destroy my property. Remind me what has this to do with wasting electricity how you see fit. What property does a bitcoin miner destroy?. Even if the air was your property, it's not the bitcoin miner that pollutes it, but the coal power plant which is owned by someone else.

For a better explanation see the "loudspeakers" answer below.

Don't regulate the individual on how fast she may drive her vehicle but ban cars that can go faster than the speed limit (varying speed limit ... ban all of them?).

It's the complete opposite. Speed limit exists for a reason, because you can destroy others' property or lives in worst case. Nobody would give a shit otherwise of imposing speed limits.

Don't ban usage of water for your lawn in times of draught instead ban water usage in general?

lol dude. Those who give you access to water are the ones deciding this, whether it's the government or a private company. If they don't ban it and you paid for it, you can use it how you see fit.

Having a retarded arbitrary law that says you can't use it in case of drought even if the company/government would sell you otherwise is retarded. Law can ban them to not sell you in such case, that would make more sense though.

Don't tell the individual that he can't blast his music full volume all night instead ban the production of loudspeakers?

This has nothing to do with anything discussed here, it's a completely orthogonal thing.

The closest I can think of is this analogy: You go to a night club and pay for the entrance. The night club blasts its speakers and the entire town is angry at it and then riots at it and gets it to shut down and pay damages.

Of course YOU GO AFTER THE CLUB **OWNERS**, not the PEOPLE WHO PAID FOR IT to enter. The latter is YOUR way of thinking.

Do you see how fucking retarded your commie way of thinking is? You'd just ban people from being able to pay for entrance to night clubs and in fact even probably make them pay for damages and public disorder, which is plain retarded.

Same with electricity: You're just a customer paying for it, you're not responsible for what the company which sells it to you does (such as polluting the air). Night club can be considered a "service" as well.

Don't go after people who "pirate" movies over the internet regulate the internet?

Usually, pirating is based on stolen intellectual property. Not the case with bitcoin mining.

Just how the gov can make it illegal to provide a service to "pirate" movies or to provide guns to shoot others they can make it illegal (or more expensive) to provide electrical power for bitcoin mining. I really would like to know why you approve of something but not the other without referring to the fact that one is currently legal/regulated and the other is currently unregulated.

The government can do whatever it wants. It can also be a communist government. So what is your point?

[sjekkel]

Don't just tunnel onto pollution, I also gave you alternatives like your extra load on the grid making my devices run worse. So as much as your excuse works for pollution that technically it's not you who pollutes but the power company it does not hold for the load you put on the grid which is your load and not the company's load.

As I said the power grid is not owned by "one people". Maybe you just have no experience in power grid engineering and that's why you have a bad picture of how it actually is. It's a similar case to the water for your lawn. The water company isn't necessarily the sole owner of the water but just one of many pumping from a big lake. If the lake goes empty other stake holders are fucked and the government can try to prevent that with regulations, which isn't seizing the means of water production and therefore definitely not communism.

Similarly if you have a restaurant and you serve different drinks. You can buy a glass of water or a glass of jim beam. Society wants to discourage alcoholism so the jim beam is regulated and extra taxed and you pay more. Just like society might want to discourage the insane waste of electric power for a currency system with proof of work. It's easy to enforce the prevention of alcoholism through the supply chain but how do you do this for electrical power? Do you deliver different "mining current" with added tax? Doesn't really work so you would have to do it on the consumer level, how is that seizing the means of production aka communism?

To expand on the "loudspeaker example", it's not the club that blasts the loud speakers. It's you being in house X using the power socket of that house and blasting full on sound all night. Are you punished or is the house owner punished who allowed you to use the power? See if you redefine the example obviously the outcome will be different. I think this is very adequate example as it's also using power in a way that's usually ok (running a computer/listening to music) that is regulated if it goes against the rules of society (wasting power on proof of work/blasting full volume all night).
The big difference is that blasting sound all night is illegal and mining bitcoin isn't. Which should be completely irrelevant because it's not about what is outright legal or what is just taxed as both are just regulations. For alcohol or cigarettes you pay more for music you are restricted by a schedule. It's just society regulation individuals behaviour which according to you is commie (bitcoin mining) for some cases and not commie in other cases (sound/drugs).

I also asked you whether you completely lose all responsibility if you purchase a service. To which you replied that as long as you're not aware of it being illegal it's fair game. A concept that doesn't hold up in any court anywhere on this globe I'm aware of. Not knowing the law is no protection from it.
But if you do follow the principle of "I just bought the service, the person offering the service is responsible" you run into the issue of hitmen/contract killer. I recently discussed this issue with my friend who is a lawyer and judge. I asked him if it's illegal for me to buy a "service that leads to death" intentionally formulated this way because I can just hire a hitman to "help me end my marriage" and the hitman kills my wife without me explicitly asking for the hitman to actually kill her. Obviously that's illegal and I assume you would agree that that should be illegal, or do you think this should be legal? (again not knowing the law is no excuse) I then proceeded to ask him if I hire someone who hires the hitman am I still doing something illegal? His reply was: "well ofc". I then asked "When does it stop?" He replied: "Theoretically never", which again is obvious as otherwise you could just run a setup where the money changes hands the defined # of times and murder would go unpunished for the person with the motive.
This is when I asked: "But if I buy a smart phone with tantal caps in them I paid someone who paid someone etc. that paid someone to kill someone so I can get a smart phone with tantal caps in it and that's perfectly legal, why?". He replied: "well, it boils down to we just don't give a shit anymore because we're to disconnected."

So what I'm getting at is that if you refuse any responsibility for a bought good or service it's just a cheap excuse because you just don't give a shit. It's not a solid principle (unless you are in favour of going unpunished for hiring a hitman) but just convenient egocentric laziness.

[Weasel]

Don't just tunnel onto pollution, I also gave you alternatives like your extra load on the grid making my devices run worse. So as much as your excuse works for pollution that technically it's not you who pollutes but the power company it does not hold for the load you put on the grid which is your load and not the company's load.

It's my load on their grid, and they allow me to in this example, so what's your issue exactly? If you don't like their service don't pay for it.

Similarly if you have a restaurant and you serve different drinks. You can buy a glass of water or a glass of jim beam. Society wants to discourage alcoholism so the jim beam is regulated and extra taxed and you pay more.

You lost me there. Society has no will. This is completely opposite to a free market. That said, alcoholism does involve direct trouble for others' and their property (especially drunk driving), so there's some sense into regulating it from that perspective.

Just like society might want to discourage the insane waste of electric power for a currency system with proof of work.

Who the fuck is this "society"? The majority? If so, then how does that change the fact they're being commies about it? If majority votes for communism, would you not call it communism? WTF.

It's easy to enforce the prevention of alcoholism through the supply chain but how do you do this for electrical power? Do you deliver different "mining current" with added tax? Doesn't really work so you would have to do it on the consumer level, how is that seizing the means of production aka communism?

In this context, I thought it was obvious I refer to the anti-free-market parts of communism here, not common means of production.

What the hell is a "mining current tax" supposed to be? In fact, who the fuck said MINING is a problem in the first place? Just because YOU don't like it? You don't get to decide for others what is important or not (yes, that's what I refer to by "communist").

In fact, I thought your problem was "excessive current usage". That's easily taxable and you don't actually have to tax it either. Just make the costs exponential with more usage. Easy.

To expand on the "loudspeaker example", it's not the club that blasts the loud speakers. It's you being in house X using the power socket of that house and blasting full on sound all night. Are you punished or is the house owner punished who allowed you to use the power? See if you redefine the example obviously the outcome will be different. I think this is very adequate example as it's also using power in a way that's usually ok (running a computer/listening to music) that is regulated if it goes against the rules of society (wasting power on proof of work/blasting full volume all night).

Huh? The guy who owns the loudspeaker and allowed you to use it that way will be blamed just as much.

Here's a much more realistic example. Suppose you have a friend who stockpiled massive amounts of batteries from solar panels, and rents you some electricity from them. You tell him you're going to use a lot (he knows this anyway, just like electrical company knows of your usage), he agrees. It's NONE OF HIS BUSINESS WHAT YOU FUCKING USE THAT ELECTRICITY FOR, not his, not anyone else's. PERIOD. As long as he is aware you use a lot, if ANY DISASTER happens to his batteries, like setting his house on fire, IT'S HIS OWN RESPONSIBILITY.

In this case, if bitcoin mining led to excessive current usage and, in turn, led to some natural disaster, then the entity who supplied you and allowed you to use that current is to be blamed because ultimately it's that entity's facility (that generated electricity) that caused the problem, not yours. They knew and allowed you to use that power in exchange for money, so it's on them.

Of course, bitcoin mining by itself is harmless. It just uses electricity. If that use of electricity causes issues at the power plant, it's their problem. I feel like you don't understand the basics here.

Just because YOU think mining is pointless doesn't mean anyone else gives a shit about your opinion. If you are to regulate electricity usage, do it for *any* use of it. Whatever you use it for is not for you to decide. If someone wants to literally waste it, and he pays for it just as much (if not more) than someone else, it's his full right to do so.

You don't get to decide for other people what's "waste" and what's not. This is not for the "common good" of the world, because we don't live in communism.

The big difference is that blasting sound all night is illegal and mining bitcoin isn't. Which should be completely irrelevant because it's not about what is outright legal or what is just taxed as both are just regulations. For alcohol or cigarettes you pay more for music you are restricted by a schedule. It's just society regulation individuals behaviour which according to you is commie (bitcoin mining) for some cases and not commie in other cases (sound/drugs).

Both alcohol, cigarettes and blasting sound affect others directly. Bitcoin mining doesn't. You're pissed that the electricity company allows them to use energy they pay for, even if it means they give less electricity for you. You don't get to decide for them though.

I also asked you whether you completely lose all responsibility if you purchase a service. To which you replied that as long as you're not aware of it being illegal it's fair game. A concept that doesn't hold up in any court anywhere on this globe I'm aware of. Not knowing the law is no protection from it.

You're completely wrong. I never said you don't know the law. I said that, to the best of your knowledge, you aren't aware it is illegal. Not the activity itself, but the product or service.

For example, if someone sells on ebay stolen goods without anyone knowing, this means to the best of your knowledge, the items are legal, just like anything else on ebay. You're not going to get into trouble by purchasing them; at worst, depending on the item, they'll get confiscated.

I asked him if it's illegal for me to buy a "service that leads to death" intentionally formulated this way because I can just hire a hitman to "help me end my marriage" and the hitman kills my wife without me explicitly asking for the hitman to actually kill her. Obviously that's illegal and I assume you would agree that that should be illegal, or do you think this should be legal?

Obviously not since you know very well that the service leads to her murder which is illegal. See my point above.

If, however, you purchased a service that promised something totally legal, such as a divorce service (dunno?), which then ended up with her murder, then you have no blame here at all since to the best of your knowledge, the service was perfectly legal and didn't include murder in it.

This is when I asked: "But if I buy a smart phone with tantal caps in them I paid someone who paid someone etc. that paid someone to kill someone so I can get a smart phone with tantal caps in it and that's perfectly legal, why?". He replied: "well, it boils down to we just don't give a shit anymore because we're to disconnected."

Do I really have to argue more about how retarded of an answer that is? Dear God.

Your rules and your supposed friends's are so "arbitrary" it's cringy.

[Weasel]

And here's another case where you ARE responsible: if your bitcoin mining causes the house to catch fire, it's your fault. If your bitcoin mining causes the power plant to blow up, it's their problem, not yours (unless you lied to them or cheated them in some way, which is illegal anyway). As long as they are fully aware of how much you're going to use and still green lit it, anything that happens on their end is their problem.


Literally all they have to know is how much you pay and how much electricity you use. What you use it for does not fucking matter, it's not their business. It's not your business either. You, nor anyone else, don't get to decide what people should use their electricity for, as long as they don't impact others with said activity. And make no mistake: I'm not talking about the AMOUNT of electricity used here, but what for.

If you regulate the AMOUNT of electricity used, no matter for what, unconditionally, that's OK. But if you regulate "bitcoin mining" despite the fact others use just as much electricity for other things, that's BULLSHIT.