Subnostr

I fully agree with you. Superconductor miners would definitely produce more hashes than their counterparts.

My "concern" (if you can even call it that) is simply economics of energy markets. The price per kw/h depends largely on where you mine.

Home mining typically isn't the most profitable, but you can justify it today if you use the heat your ASIC produces productively. Like heating your house, pool, or something else you would have been paying to heat anyways.

Without heat as a byproduct, miners who co-locate to cheaper energy sources are simply more profitable. The incentives shift further away from mining at home.

ĐaꝞꭵꞧuꞩ.₿ 🟠 2y ago

You are right, but if you look at you % of the total market hash, you can keep your ratio spending way less and that might still make it profitable. Really depends on price and availability of the super ASICS more than the energy price.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

marcan0 2y ago

If I understand you correctly, during the transition super ASICs will be much more profitable and even home miners will yield a large enough margin to justify the costs.

If so, yes I agree and that makes sense.

Then the only question becomes "how fast can we migrate everything to superconductors?" 😏

ĐaꝞꭵꞧuꞩ.₿ 🟠 2y ago

That is basically my point, yes. Superconductors will cut the KW/hash by orders of magnitude. Then depending on how fast you can replace the olde miners, the network hash rate will just balloon or the mining cost will plummet. Or both.