73 sats \ 4 replies \ @bergealex4 29 Jan 2023 \ parent \ on: Answering Objections to Drivechain bitcoin
They do not all mine RSK, even though it's profitable
It's the other way around, they do not all mine RSK because it's simply not that profitable at all.
Based on latest available data I could find, MM generated $32k/month for eligible miners. That is not even marginal that is a rounding error.
The pools who support it started doing so as a misguided marketing ploy to try to attract more hashrate and just can't be bothered to turn it off. I wouldn't be surprised if they were offered RSK shit tokens on top of that to make it worth their while.
they do not all move to regions with the cheapest energy, even though that means they are overpaying, they do not all have a side hustle, even though it would increase their revenues
Again, this is not remotely similar. They don't have the option of outsourcing the associated costs otherwise they would. If you told them they could flip a switch and pay the same energy rates as the cheapest miners do, they would.
write
preview
1443 sats \ 3 replies \ @sergiodlerner 30 Jan 2023 freebie
RSK miners were not offered any other token other than rBTC AFAIK.
If miners net revenue is 10% of gross revenue, then 32k USD/month (RSK fees) is like mining 2.5 Bitcoin blocks for a reward of 320k for free. Not bad. Also, MEV is not accounted in that supposed 32k/month.
Finally, Bitcoin miners also merge mine RSK because they think it adds value to Bitcoin long term.
reply
36 sats \ 0 replies \ @supertestnet_phone 30 Jan 2023
Great to see you here, you should do an AMA about rootstock here on stacker news. @k00b let's get that set up!
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @bergealex4 2 Feb 2023
what is the current revenue?
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @sn 30 Jan 2023
Hey Sergio, if you're ever interested in hosting an AMA on Stacker News about RSK, feel free to DM us on Twitter to set up a time https://twitter.com/stacker_news
reply