Miners like Riot Blockchain are operating at a loss
I’m not a finance wizard, but I peeked at their last SEC filing, and first 3 quarters of 2024 they posted a 35m operating loss, but added almost 900m worth of assets to their balance sheet (mostly Bitcoin), which to me tells a very different story
The quote is actually from the article this one paraphrased and linked to, while leaving out all of the actual, you know, information
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
Yes, it was hyperbole, but saying “CodeWeavers does contribute back” is really downplaying it, many, if not most of the wine development is done by CodeWeavers employees (including Alexandre Julliard). Mac users buying crossover was pretty much the main economic driver turning the gears of wine for the 10-15 years before Valve started sponsoring it as well.
still can’t trust them long term because profit
The company is an employee owned trust (co-op) if that lessens the blow
The “Paid app” he is referring to is wine for anyone too lazy to read the article
You seem content to entirely gloss over the issue, which isn’t the pros/cons of a particular writing style, it’s that the maintainer could have said ANY of the things you said, but he didn’t
If I was the maintainer, I too would probably reject the PR because it didn’t remove the gender entirely.
Cool, but that isn’t what happened here. The PR was closed immediately because the maintainer considered using gender neutral pronouns “personal politics” - he had ample opportunity to clarify his stance, or simply comment ‘resubmit in passive voice’, but he didn’t. Clearly the problem wasn’t the active voice, it was the summary of the change, because when that exact same PR was re-submitted much later with a commit message of ‘Fix some minor ESL grammar issues’, it was accepted with no discussion
As an aside, I absolutely disagree with the use of passive voice. It’s more verbose, and harder for the reader to comprehend. It’s why every style guide (APA, Chicago, IEEE, etc) recommends sticking to active voice, especially in the context of ‘doing things’.
If goes against established norms here
What’s the established norm here. All people compiling software by source are male?
he said politically motivated changes aren’t welcome
What’s politically motivated about changing “he” to “they”. As you said, gender doesn’t apply here, so the neutral word is literally preferable.
Yes, I’m sure that PR would have been accepted instead /s
But you’re right, it doesn’t matter at all, the reasonable thing to do would have been for the guy to spend 3 seconds clicking the accept and merge button, or 6 seconds making your change. instead he wrote a comment stating that inclusive language has no place in his project
https://github.com/SerenityOS/serenity/pull/6814#issuecomment-830793992
Really?
This screams “women not wanted” to me
it’s literally easier to do on a technical level
I wouldn’t go that far. It’s still trivially easy, and arguably best practice, but it’s certainly more complicated than issuing an in-place update
If the code doesn’t change, the resulting docker image will have the same hash, and a new image won’t be created
https://github.com/jackett/jackett/releases
Jackett is literally just releasing a new version every day
The content of the email is very laissez-faire, e.g. "we legally have to send these ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ "
I collect these like pokemon 🙃
Especially because it’s to a newbie, who stands to benefit the most from using an OS with more user share and more available online resources.
To be fair it’s power consumption is effectively zero at standby and only 4-5W at idle/light usage.
If you were worried about this amount of power usage you would be better off unplugging your microwave when not in use to avoid running the clock display
It’s really not that complicated. At a high level:
And then divide those numbers because it’s actually billed by the hour
The word ‘decipher’ is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I’m wondering if they socially engineered or just found it written somewhere in the house?
You can plausibly brute force up to 4, maybe 5 words of a seed phrase. It takes longer than a normal password because every seed phrase is technically valid, so the only way to know if your brute force is successful is to generate thousands of addresses at each of the different derivation paths you may expect funds to exist at.
The same seed phrase is used for Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero, etc, but each currency uses the seed phrase to generate addresses in a slightly different standard. Additionally, each wallet uses a slightly different variation of that. Within each wallet is a notion of accounts, and within each account you could have dozens of addresses. You need to generate each of those addresses, and scan each cryptocurrencies blockchain to see if those addresses have ever been used.
Realistically one of three things happened: his seed phrase was written down and they found it, it was password protected or on a drive with weak AES encryption and they cracked THAT instead, or finally, he used a hardware wallet and they exploited a firmware vulnerability to lift the PIN and transfer out funds and/or read the seed from the device
Does Google Cloud not count as “own hardware” for google?
That’s why the bars are so different. The “cloud” price is MSRP
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:
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