I’m stupid. I completely forgot that the worlders have enforced an authoritarian tankie censorship regime 😔

From a basic labor theory of value perspective, bitcoin requires labor to produce because mining it requires massive amounts of compute power. This computer power is supplied using GPUs and electricity, both of which require labor to produce.

If you use this calculator, and enter the values 67 TH/s (tera hashes per second, the rate at which you are mining), 2680 watts for electricity consumption rate, and 5 cents per kilo watt hour as prices, you will see

4.25 USD revenue per day 3.22 USD cost per day Profit rate = 32.0%

To make the values of the the hash rate and energy consumption rate realistic, I consulted the specs of the machine antminer S17, which is aparantly a machine used in the bitcoin mining world (I ain’t into crypto mining). The cost of electricty comes from Kazakhstan, which has cheap electricty and substantial mining operations.

So basically, at the current price of bitcoin can support a gross profit rate of 32% for the people who produce bitcoin, assuming you keep all the profit (no taxes, interest, rent), have no employees or maintainable costs. This is the price currently settled at based on the technological conditions and level of competition.

It is nothing too crazy of a price, and the rapid growth of price in bitcoin is due to how the currency was designed. Basically, once a certain number of bitcoin have been mined, the bitcoin generation rate per mined block halves. This forces an exponential rise in the difficulty of mining bitcoin, and therefore an exponential rise in its price.

Most probably, if bitcoin was designed to have a constant difficulty of producing, its price wouldn’t have increased at all.

I’ll bite. This is a genuinely new take I haven’t seen before, despite 3 years of the war. Would you mind explaining how exactly Russia is an American minion?

Biased, politicised science is real science. Not the platonic ideal you have in your head.

That didn’t feel like science so much as politics and I get why some would be against that.

Respectfully, this is a weak sauce excuse, and a completely unscientific attitude. Scientists do not establish arbitrary barriers between different fields.

These kinds of statements 99% of the time come from people who don’t even do science, and whose understanding of science consists of “take down data points, analyse data points, be neutral” (paraphrasing your comment).

In reality, scientific names are usually given to honor specific people. The idea that the community just gives names to people who discovered things is simply ignorant of history. There are literally cases of people purchasing name recognition. There are also cases of people being honored by having their name on a phenomena they didn’t even discover, or a unit they did not create (typical for units, which are standardised by committees and not named after people in the standardisation committee)

It wasn’t a pizza-loving, but pizza-hating diplomat. Basically, one of us had contact with a dprk diplomat, someone asked them what food they ate, and the diplomat answered that he doesn’t like pizza (likely due to lactose intolerance).

Except it is since Chinese companies take US tech and flood the market with cheaper shittier versions.

Fixed it for you. The west barely even makes industrial products. At best western companies assembles parts ordered from China, or designs them but has them produced in china (obviously the factory manufacturing your designs will find out what the design is!)

On top of that, in many cases, western companies in china are literally signing explicit technology transfer contracts to work in china.

Even when the Chinese steal western designs (a fear that is completely overblown and mostly just corporate propaganda against market competitors), that is actually a good thing because IP is a plague upon humanity.

Even Intel had a bunch of there stuff stolen.

That’s good news.

Not something worth respecting in the first place

Amazing to see people in 2025 who still believe in this nonsense.

structural issues like command and control policies

Planned economics is precisely the reason why China has grown faster than India and become so dominant. Because they can control their economy for long-term human needs instead of putting everything into finance like the west.

the dictator

Anyone who still thinks Xi is a dictator despite the very strong collective and decentralised governance of China doesn’t know enough about the country to pass an elementary school civics test.

The whole reason the property market bubble happened was because the Chinese government is way too decentralised. Local governments bet all in on property values as a way to boost tax revenue (land taxes are their main source of income). The central government should have stepped in way sooner, but that would have required centralising the Chinese tax base significantly, a tough thing to do because it would also require centralising public services. Not only would that require buy in from the vast number of local representatives and the national people’s congress, but it would have also interfered with the poverty alleviation campaign.

an economy built on unnecessary public spending

Pure neoliberal cope. I hope you are enjoying your deindustrialised austerity economy.

an educational system which continues to emphasise blind obedience over individualism

This is hilarious coming from westerners who have naught an original thought, only memes.

I mean the ruling class of Russia, China, and Iran, can also be my enemy.

The ruling classes of maybe Russia and Iran can be considered “enemies” (although if you live in the west, they don’t have any power and little influence over you), while the ruling class of China is neutral for westerners (and positive for the Chinese) in the most cynical reading.

Furthermore

1. Believing in the narratives of your ruling class is why you have such a negative perception of these governments in the first place. Otherwise, Russia and Iran’s repressive policies are not more repressive than most countries outside the west (and let’s be real, they are barely more repressive than the west)
2. These countries are playing a military role in dismantling western imperialism, and you should use this as an opportunity to weaken your ruling class, which is infinitely more bloodthirsty than Russia or Iran’s ruling class, and also maintains a global system of super exploitation whose downfall is the only way forward for humanity. Unless of course, you know of anyone else who is militarily opposing the west (Yemen is the only one else).

No need to be choosy when you can instead have solidarity with the mistreated and exploited around the world :)

The exploited and mistreated of the world in general have a net positive perception of Russia, and China precisely because these countries have a continued track record of helping these countries. And this is especially true with China.

It’s absolutely possible for the UK to increase its defence spending while also not harming civilians, in the Middle East or anywhere else.

Not for imperial Britain. It’s possible for other countries, but not for imperialists. If you have the slightest concern for the people of Britain and people in other countries, you should oppose all attempts made by the imperialists to arm themselves. I oppose the imperial British arming themselves for the same reason I oppose nazi Germany arming itself.

Has there been a single year in my entire life where the western powers were not at war against some third world country? If the British really can be trusted with a military, they should prove it.

justified

Literally never even implied that. I’m sorry that your political education was limited to watching marvel movies with battles between good and evil.

Ukraine, a relatively weak country, joined NATO, it wouldn’t make a massive difference to the capabilities of NATO.

On the contrary, it would. Allowing western military infrastructure on an indefensible border would have been a catastrophic strategic error.

Also, kind of amazing to see liberal now hyping up Russian military capabilities when earlier in the war, they were calling it a “gas station with nukes”. Maybe the threat of these “advanced military capabilities” should have played a role in the political calculations of sending Ukrainians into an unwinnable war.

The reason some Ukrainians want to join NATO is because of the very real existential threat that Russia has posed to the state of Ukraine.

There was no such strategic or existential threat in the aftermath of the cold war where the west basically lotted and puppeteered Russia. Even putin had naively tried to join nato believing that this would alleviate western attempts at putting military pressure on Russia back in 2008 or 7, don’t remember the exact year.

I don’t know why you think Russia should be trusted to launch no more invasions of Europe.

Trusted is the wrong word. Prediction is better. The overwhelming majority of wars occur around previously predictable flashpoints. This does not mean that wars do not break out without reason, but this is rare. The same goes with Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine had been predicted all the way back in Clinton’s time, with some of his advisors explicitly being concerned that arming Ukraine would undermine the post-cold war order and security in Europe.

Next time it might be another former-USSR country, like one of the Baltics.

On what basis, and for what gain?

The UK is of course obliged by its NATO membership to help the Baltics if they are invaded.

Precisely. You are positing that the Russians will invade and fight against NATO, triggering WW3. But why? What would the geopolitical drive be for such an action on the Russian part?

Also you mention “the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders” as if that’s a legitimate excuse for Russia’s invasions of Ukraine and Georgia.

The behaviors of states and nations have nothing to do with “legitimacy”, which is a made up concept. On the Russian side, western military encroachment into Ukraine was viewed as an existential threat, and they had communicated this view over and over to the west even before Putin’s rise to power. When dialogue failed to produce results, and the maidan coup happened, the Russians supported the separatists in the Donbass. Even then, they signed 2 ceasefires (Minsk 1 and Minsk 2), both of which were still broken. The Russians thought that Trump would solve the situation, but he didn’t because he generally tends to fumble just about everything.

Then after all that, they decided to launch basically a decapitation strike on Ukraine in Feb 2022. By April 2022, the strike hadn’t worked, but the Ukrainians and Russians were in the process of another treaty, which as far as I remember, Boris Johnson convinced the Ukrainians to not take. It was only then that the attrition war mess started.

My point is, western powers had many many opportunities to de-escalate the situation. Russia also had the choice of not invading, but every Russian leader made it clear that a Ukraine militarily integreated into the west is a national security catastrophe for them. That includes everyone from Gobachev (the one who dissolved the USSR on behalf of the west), Yeltsin (the one installed by the west), and Putin (the Russian liberal who initially wanted to join NATO until the west made it clear that they basically wanted to continue the cold war).

In essence, every russian leader since the late 1980s started out as pro-west, and yet the west simply does not want to end the cold war. So now you’re back to the same situation as before the dissolution of the USSR. The formation of 2 competing blocs that engage in proxy wars to contain each other’s power. And let’s be clear, Russia is not the only taking military action. The west’s military adventurism in west asia directly threatens the security of Russia and China, and India, and Europe. Part of the reason for the west’s fanatical levels of support for Israel is precisely because it is a convenient launching pad for de-stabilization actions taken in the heart of Eurasia.

it is perfectly possible for the UK to increase its defence capabilities, while also refraining from attacks upon the Middle East

This is for a hypothetical UK that has divested from the imperial system in west asia, a hypothetical UK that does not exist.

I think that’s a separate issue from the UK and its allies spending more on defence in order to protect themselves from Russia, though.

It very much isn’t. You don’t have 2 seperate militaries, one for defense against Russia and one for use against everyone else.

If you think Europe and the UK should do more to try and stop Israel’s conduct in Palestine then that’s fair enough.

I’m talking more big picture. You have to look at geopolitics from the big picture, and the little details as well. What kinds and quantities of weapons will your new defense spending provide? What social services will your government cut using the excuse of managing the budget? What are the energy and mineral costs of these new weapons? Are these new weapons actually of the type that will address the threat profile from Russia towards the UK? Where will these weapons be used? Who is gaining the money from these military contracts?

Once you start asking these questions, the whole narrative around western rearmament falls apart. Especially when you look at how these people who want to ramp up military spending are simultaneously pursuing further austerity and de-industrialization. Your government are theives stripping out the copper from your walls, and promising you that they will use the copper wire to build an electric fence around your house. Except also an electric fence doesn’t protect you from the threats you actually face, and the thief doesn’t have the equipment to build you a fence.

As someone living in Europe, I actually do want to see this continent prosper, but I am seeing people repeating the same mistakes of the pre-ww1 era.

I do think Russia is a threat to Europe though.

This idea is contradicted by 3 factors

1. Russia was willing to prop up European industry by selling it cheap energy and commodities right up until Europe sanctioned Russia. Hell, even today, Russians are indirectly selling gas to Europeans.
2. Russia’s military involvement in Ukraine and Georgia is based on unique factors that do not apply to the rest of Europe (the encroachment of western military infrastructure into easily penetrable borders. Remember, the Germans were able to march all the way to Moscow by invading through the border at Ukraine in living memory. That border is very difficult to defend).
3. The idea of “eurasianism” was popularized starting in Russia, that is, the idea of a pan-Eurasian economic and political cooperation. It is easy to see why such an idea would appeal to Russians, since it is in the long-term interests of Russians to cooperate with their neighbors and multi-lateral trade between India, China, Russia and Europe would allow these countries to economically surpass and de-couple from the US.

Now I do not assume that the average European is going to look at Russia after the invasion very fondly, however, Europeans must accept the fact that a) Russia isn’t going anywhere, b) They have 0 incentive to invade Europe unprovoked and finally, c) the de-industrialized neoliberal west has overextended itself in the post covid years to an unsustainable degree. At this rate, the west will be ripped apart by internal forces faster than external ones.

In any case I don’t think the UK is planning new military action in the Middle East.

You’re basing this on what? And who said that the UK’s future aggression will only be limited to the middle east?

Starmer recently criticised Israel for its conduct in Gaza.

Congratulations for the mildly worded letter while still providing military parts and daily reconossaince missions I guess.

If you think Europe should do more to stop what Israel is doing in Gaza

They should start by not supplying Israel and America with military support and parts.

Surely though that’s a separate issue to the issue of the UK spending more on defence to deter aggression from Russia.

Is it? The European countries have fought scarcely any defensive wars since ww2. Do you think the weapons built today in the name of defending against Russia will not be used for Europe’s next colonial adventures?

Not to mention, everytime europe arms itself, other countries also arm themselves in response. And this time, the Europeans don’t even have the industrial capacity to actually arm themselves for a peer to peer conflict (only for suppressing insurgents in colonies). They really just want to shovel money to consultants and the MIC.

One of the all time great lib dunking enshrined in this comment thread was fueled by a lem.ee poster. I will always be thankful to this guy from .ee for providing magnificent entertainment.

I don’t think Europe plans to invade anywhere.

Have I been imagining the euro-american wars and colonialism in the middle east then? The ones literally ongoing right now?

Look at how the European countries that are increasing their defence spending the most (Poland, the Baltics) are the ones next to Russia

And these are also the most neoliberalised, nationalistic and militantly anti-communist states in europe. And these were heavily armed states well before the Russian involvement in Ukraine.

The doctrine of “peace through strength” has scarcely ever worked out, especially not in europe. Modern European history is a basket case of out-of-control arms races.

Are European countries donating weapons to Israel?

Literally yes. Germany is a major one. And Britain helps with reconnaissance and supplying parts for things like F35s.

Recently there was a statement from the UK, France, and Canada, where they said that Israel’s current action in Gaza is wrong

Congratulations to the European politicians I guess for realising that maybe giving unconditional public support for fascism has a negative effect on your optics.

I guess they can move on to trying to hide better their assistance to israel. Perhaps they can launder it through Al jolani and his dictatorship in Syria. He did recently meet with the European heads of states, and he did afterwards announce that he would collaborate with israel. Not to mention that the fall of baathism in Syria severely negatively impacts the logistics of supplying the Palestinian resistance. So even if jolani did nothing else, by proping him up, the European states can ensure that no one can actually stop Israeli soldiers on the ground.