3 ms·

I don’t know, but the main point of zoning laws is to prevent disturbances (like you can’t run a shop or a bar in a residential building for obvious noise and c

I don’t know, but the main point of zoning laws is to prevent disturbances (like you can’t run a shop or a bar in a residential building for obvious noise and crowd concerns), but I don’t see why mining would be problematic. I’d rather have miners in the building rather than the drug-dealing kids that attract police every other week or so. Mining is very peaceful, you just install a piece of hardware and let it run (no noise, no damage, etc).

joosters 8y ago
No noise??? You need some deafening loud whirring fans to cool the racks of miners.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  But overall a building wall is pretty effective at shielding from that kind of noise. I’d very much prefer a quiet white noise from the racks in the above unit than someone arguing at 3am or a stupid toddler screaming. You can easily tune out “stable” noise like the one produced by fans, but you can’t for irregular noise like people talking or someone dropping heavy stuff at night.
rdiddly 8y ago
The point of zoning laws is different depending on whom you ask. Those most strongly in favor of mixed-use urbanism might even say there's no point. But in the broadest sense, they're supposed to prevent conflicts between land uses. And crypto mining at any useful/profitable scale conflicts with an electrical infrastructure designed for lower residential loads. To allow mining safely, someone has to pay to upgrade that infrastructure. Otherwise you're looking at overloading a circuit, maybe even burning the building down.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  Aren’t energy prices supposed to pay for that? In France for example, in addition to per kWh rate you also pay a subscription charge corresponding to the maximum amount of current you can draw from the grid. The miners who need more power would pay for higher current and thus pay for the upgrades to the grid.
jsjohnst 8y ago
> Mining is very peaceful Until you factor in the risk of fire, environmental impact, and the fact that when bitcoin goes bust which will ultimately happen (nothing lasts forever), the county will be left holding the bag in a similar fashion to other major industries of old.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  > risk of fire Is it actually riskier than a resident living in the same place? I don’t think so. A faulty mining installation would catch fire early on, and if that doesn’t occur then it’s mostly safe. A resident on the other hand would be using risky appliances every day (cooker, oven, heating, hair dryer, etc), which combined with the potential human error, seems like a bigger risk. > environmental impact How does zoning change this in any way? Whether you’re drawing tons of energy from a residential or commercial building doesn’t change the fact that energy could be damaging the environment. I’d argue that in this particular case though, the energy we’re talking about is from a hydroelectric plant and so fully renewable. > the county will be left holding the bag What would that “bag” be? Sure, the miners would pull out, but then the town would be back at the exact situation as before mining, albeit with an upgraded electrical and network infrastructure paid by the miners - I don’t see how this is a bad thing.
  - jsjohnst 8y ago
    > A resident on the other hand would be using risky appliances every day (cooker, oven, heating, hair dryer, etc) If you don’t see the difference between a household appliance that sporadically uses some electricity vs a mining ring that continually draws very high current on wire not rated for that usage, then I guess we can’t have an intellectual discussion. Especially as the source article mentions miner fires that have already happened. Heck, depending on the age of the place, it could still be aluminum wiring even which is even worse. > How does zoning change this in any way? You don’t think all these new infrastructure that will ultimately go to waste doesn’t have an environtal impact? > albeit with an upgraded electrical and network infrastructure paid by the miners You think a short (as in anything under 5+ years) lived burst in electricity sales will pay for all that infrastructure they need to build? Especially as they could make more money exporting that capacity via existing infrastructure to other areas?

joosters 8y ago

No noise??? You need some deafening loud whirring fans to cool the racks of miners.

Rjevski 8y ago
But overall a building wall is pretty effective at shielding from that kind of noise. I’d very much prefer a quiet white noise from the racks in the above unit than someone arguing at 3am or a stupid toddler screaming. You can easily tune out “stable” noise like the one produced by fans, but you can’t for irregular noise like people talking or someone dropping heavy stuff at night.

rdiddly 8y ago

The point of zoning laws is different depending on whom you ask. Those most strongly in favor of mixed-use urbanism might even say there's no point. But in the broadest sense, they're supposed to prevent conflicts between land uses. And crypto mining at any useful/profitable scale conflicts with an electrical infrastructure designed for lower residential loads. To allow mining safely, someone has to pay to upgrade that infrastructure. Otherwise you're looking at overloading a circuit, maybe even burning the building down.

Rjevski 8y ago
Aren’t energy prices supposed to pay for that? In France for example, in addition to per kWh rate you also pay a subscription charge corresponding to the maximum amount of current you can draw from the grid. The miners who need more power would pay for higher current and thus pay for the upgrades to the grid.

jsjohnst 8y ago

> Mining is very peaceful Until you factor in the risk of fire, environmental impact, and the fact that when bitcoin goes bust which will ultimately happen (nothing lasts forever), the county will be left holding the bag in a similar fashion to other major industries of old.

Rjevski 8y ago
> risk of fire Is it actually riskier than a resident living in the same place? I don’t think so. A faulty mining installation would catch fire early on, and if that doesn’t occur then it’s mostly safe. A resident on the other hand would be using risky appliances every day (cooker, oven, heating, hair dryer, etc), which combined with the potential human error, seems like a bigger risk. > environmental impact How does zoning change this in any way? Whether you’re drawing tons of energy from a residential or commercial building doesn’t change the fact that energy could be damaging the environment. I’d argue that in this particular case though, the energy we’re talking about is from a hydroelectric plant and so fully renewable. > the county will be left holding the bag What would that “bag” be? Sure, the miners would pull out, but then the town would be back at the exact situation as before mining, albeit with an upgraded electrical and network infrastructure paid by the miners - I don’t see how this is a bad thing.
- jsjohnst 8y ago
  > A resident on the other hand would be using risky appliances every day (cooker, oven, heating, hair dryer, etc) If you don’t see the difference between a household appliance that sporadically uses some electricity vs a mining ring that continually draws very high current on wire not rated for that usage, then I guess we can’t have an intellectual discussion. Especially as the source article mentions miner fires that have already happened. Heck, depending on the age of the place, it could still be aluminum wiring even which is even worse. > How does zoning change this in any way? You don’t think all these new infrastructure that will ultimately go to waste doesn’t have an environtal impact? > albeit with an upgraded electrical and network infrastructure paid by the miners You think a short (as in anything under 5+ years) lived burst in electricity sales will pay for all that infrastructure they need to build? Especially as they could make more money exporting that capacity via existing infrastructure to other areas?