SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Lamp]

View: https://youtu.be/pXw7LYWNi5E

 

[caLLous]

If you see a GPU rig like this...

...99 times out of 100 it'll be mining Ethereum whereas ASICs (Application-specific integrated circuit, a machine designed from the ground up for a sole purpose - in this case mining) like this...

...will be mining Bitcoin. The aim from the start with mining in Ethereum was that it should be accessible to everybody so the hashing algorithm was specifically designed to be resistant to ASICs so GPUs always were and always will be (until mining Ethereum isn't a thing any more) the best at it.

I have no idea how much energy it uses compared to Bitcoin but a lot less and it's going to plummet because Ethereum is moving to Proof of Stake and away from Proof of Work. With PoW you contribute hashing power (shit loads of GPUs with shitloads of VRAM) to the network whereas with PoS you contribute ETH itself. It "costs" 32 ETH to start up a validator but all you have to do is run the Eth2 client. Your deposit is locked up in a contract, you get paid for attesting and you get paid more for proposing blocks but you also get penalised (about as much as you would've earned) for being offline. You can run dozens of validators off of a Raspberry Pi so the energy consumption will be an insignificant little speck compared to mining. I've been running an Eth2 client since day 1 and it's a far cry from the constantly screaming GPU fans I used to have to put up with.

The Eth2 beacon chain has been up for 2 months and is going great but the 2 chains won't become one until at least Q3 of this year so mining (PoW) will be a thing for a while yet. There's a highly contentious Improvement Proposal (EIP 1559) that the miners are dead against because it will do away with gas fees (which is a large part of their income). Everyone else is all for it though, it would be much fairer and it could make Ethereum deflationary which would have massive implications on the price. It's seen as the "final piece of Ethereum's monetary policy".

So, Ethereum is responsible for most of the GPU mining but ASICs make up a much bigger share of all mining. This recent spike in mining and demand for GPUs is driven entirely by Ethereum's price going up which is, ironically, because of the advancements that have led to the launch of Proof of Stake (which will ultimately lead to the end of mining). If you wanted to look at it through very Eth-tinted glasses you could say that this entire bull-run kicked off when the Eth2 mainnet launchpad was announced (mid-November).

 

[Scouse]

Everyone else is all for it though, it would be much fairer and it could make Ethereum deflationary which would have massive implications on the price

ETH to $10k then?

How much would you make?

 

[caLLous]

Enough. I'm mostly locked into staking - there's literally no way of withdrawing until some undefined point in at least 2022 but I'm currently earning 10% APR (it was closer to 20% at launch but the more people who stake, the lower the returns are - scroll down a bit on the launchpad page) for doing pretty much sod all apart from making sure a computer is on and online all the time. I'm quite relaxed about not being able to withdraw, I'm a hodler by nature anyway so it removes any temptation. I've got a bit to play with but the chances are I'll just leave that alone as well.

As for price... something something piece of string. People seem to think $5-10k this cycle. It seems like ETH is following BTC but a cycle behind and ETH has *so* much more going for it in terms of fundamentals.

BTC is flying because Tesla announced earlier today that they'd bought $1.5bn of it in January. I think Elon Musk just likes fucking with everybody tbh.

 

[Scouse]

Enough. I'm mostly locked into staking - there's literally no way of withdrawing until some undefined point in at least 2022 but I'm currently earning 10% APR (it was closer to 20% at launch but the more people who stake, the lower the returns are - scroll down a bit on the launchpad page) for doing pretty much sod all apart from making sure a computer is on and online all the time. I'm quite relaxed about not being able to withdraw, I'm a hodler by nature anyway so it removes any temptation. I've got a bit to play with but the chances are I'll just leave that alone as well.

As for price... something something piece of string. People seem to think $5-10k this cycle. It seems like ETH is following BTC but a cycle behind and ETH has *so* much more going for it in terms of fundamentals.

BTC is flying because Tesla announced earlier today that they'd bought $1.5bn of it in January. I think Elon Musk just likes fucking with everybody tbh.

Well I won't be a validator any time soon given the minimum stake is 32 ETH.

Nice little egg you've got their m8

 

[Deebs]

Finally got my dappnode synced up. Need to get the eth2 client up and running.

 

[Zarjazz]

No matter how hard I try I still can't grok crypto currency. I feel like I'm missing out on free money.

 

[Deebs]

Fucking brilliant


View: https://twitter.com/USAinUK/status/1359108045427666944

 

[Raven]

 

[Moriath]

Fucking brilliant


View: https://twitter.com/USAinUK/status/1359108045427666944

If its a collaboration it would be beanz on a donut or a begal. Lol

 

[Raven]

Heinz beans are American

 

[Scouse]

Exemptions from right to buy that means people are denied the right to own their own home and have to pay rent, rather than build up equity in a property they own, in perpuity?!

Wowzers.

Still OK with this @Embattle

 

[Bodhi]

Exemptions from right to buy that means people are denied the right to own their own home and have to pay rent, rather than build up equity in a property they own, in perpuity?!

Wowzers.

Still OK with this @Embattle

Depends on whether they knew that when they bought the property (which they did, judging by the fact they raised the issue they couldn't sell it). If they didn't that's harsh, if they did and moved in anyway, I have the same sympathy I do for people who move in next door to pubs then complain about the noise - feck all.

Anyway, Right to Buy is a Government scheme aimed at first time buyers on new builds isn't it? I say that as we are looking to buy this place off the landlord, and the Govt have effectively told us to naff off if we want any help.

Just as it should be, really

 

[Moriath]

Heinz beans are American

But the recipe here is nothing like the ones you can buy in the usa.

 

[Raven]

I thought right to buy was just for council owned properties? While I don't agree with the parasitic nature of buy to rent, which artificially increases demand for people actually buying a house to live in and therefore price, there isn't a great deal anyone can do about it.

 

[Moriath]

Depends on whether they knew that when they bought the property (which they did, judging by the fact they raised the issue they couldn't sell it). If they didn't that's harsh, if they did and moved in anyway, I have the same sympathy I do for people who move in next door to pubs then complain about the noise - feck all.

Anyway, Right to Buy is a Government scheme aimed at first time buyers on new builds isn't it? I say that as we are looking to buy this place off the landlord, and the Govt have effectively told us to naff off if we want any help.

Just as it should be, really

Right to buy was a 80’s thing from thatcher that said you could buy your council house. Help to buy is a scheme for first time buyers who get money added to their savings to buy a first time new build.

right to buy wouldnt apply to the duchy estates because they are not council houses.

edit: @Raven got there 2 mins before me lol

 

[DaGaffer]

Heinz beans are American

Nope. Not those Heinz beans anyway.

 

[Bodhi]

Right to buy was a 80’s thing from thatcher that said you could buy your council house. Help to buy is a scheme for first time buyers who get money added to their savings to buy a first time new build.

right to buy wouldnt apply to the duchy estates because they are not council houses.

edit: @Raven got there 2 mins before me lol

Ah gotcha, I really should pay attention when the wife tells me this stuff

However now I'm even more confused, she says Charles took away her right to buy, then is complaining that she owns a house that isn't worth very much that she can't borrow against? I'm guessing she's bought the house but not the land it's on in that case?

 

[Scouse]

Depends on whether they knew that when they bought the property

It's got fuck all to do with when people bought a property. The law was changed for all apart from for stuff the Royal Family has an interest in.


Do you wank yourself to sleep to a picture of Liz, happy and secure that they're raping the public so they can keep their resident paedo in hookers and coke or something?

 

[Raven]

I am getting more weary with the monarchy and what little use they actually are.

I think we should have one and on the whole it has worked for us but "this sort of thing" really boils my piss.

 

[Scouse]

right to buy wouldnt apply to the duchy estates because they are not council houses

Did nobody read the article titled: "Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes"?

i.e. It did apply to them, until the royals interfered.[/SIZE]

 

[Moriath]

Ah gotcha, I really should pay attention when the wife tells me this stuff

However now I'm even more confused, she says Charles took away her right to buy, then is complaining that she owns a house that isn't worth very much that she can't borrow against? I'm guessing she's bought the house but not the land it's on in that case?

I think theres some obscure thing that might say if you lived somewhere for x time then you could apply to buy it.
not seen the actual law though. And the article doesnt set it out what conditions need to be met in properties that are not the duchy ones.

so i think that its something that the general population dont do in non duchy homes anyway. So why a renter who loves in a house under a rental agreement, and who knowingly does so should ever think they have the right to force the landlord to sell it i have no idea.

 

[Moriath]

Did nobody read the article titled: "Prince Charles vetted laws that stop his tenants buying their homes"?

i.e. It did apply to them, until the royals interfered.[/SIZE]

See above.

 

[Scouse]

See above.

I did. You were wrong. That is why I responded.

If you were right, there'd be no fucking article in the first place.

 

[Bodhi]

It's got fuck all to do with when people bought a property. The law was changed for all apart from for stuff the Royal Family has an interest in.


Do you wank yourself to sleep to a picture of Liz, happy and secure that they're raping the public so they can keep their resident paedo in hookers and coke or something?

It's Elizabeth to you, peasant.

And anyway, I was just trying to clarify what the point of the article actually was. The headline suggests that Charles (who is a prize nobber it must be said) had stopped them from buying their homes, yet in the article there is a quote from the sadface in question that says:

“When we die, our kids will be left with a property that is very difficult to sell,” she said.

So obviously they have bought their home, as its pretty much impossible to sell something you don't own (legally, anyway).

So what is the actual story here? Other than The Guardian and it's 12 readers don't like the Royal Family very much. As far as news is concerned, that's up there with water is still wet and Scouse has got the text formatting out again. So which bit am I supposed to care about?

 

[Raven]

Full xmas dinner tomorrow, including crackers. Had a £50 M&S voucher taking up room in my wallet, fuck all else worth buying from M&S.

Got to make the bread sauce myself though.

 

[Ormorof]

It's Elizabeth to you, peasant.

And anyway, I was just trying to clarify what the point of the article actually was. The headline suggests that Charles (who is a prize nobber it must be said) had stopped them from buying their homes, yet in the article there is a quote from the sadface in question that says:



So obviously they have bought their home, as its pretty much impossible to sell something you don't own (legally, anyway).

So what is the actual story here? Other than The Guardian and it's 12 readers don't like the Royal Family very much. As far as news is concerned, that's up there with water is still wet and Scouse has got the text formatting out again. So which bit am I supposed to care about?

Its a freehold so they own right to live there not the property, what Charlie did is prevent them from gaining right to buy the property (because he, and the royals want that big estate to be kept intact)

There was probably a smart way to solve this but instead royals make themselves look like twats (not hard because they are )

 

[MYstIC G]

Got to make the bread sauce myself though.

So you should, it's always pish from the shop

 

[Raven]

So you should, it's always pish from the shop

Agreed but I aimed to have the least amount of work possible, I am also painting two rooms tomorrow and making a start on building some more cupboards and storage from scratch

 

[MYstIC G]

Agreed but I aimed to have the least amount of work possible, I am also painting two rooms tomorrow and making a start on building some more cupboards and storage from scratch

Pfft... Not on a full crimbo lunch you're not and we both know it 😉