Thoughts on a “HDD shortage” from an industry insider(reddit.com)
reddit.com
Thoughts on a “HDD shortage” from an industry insider
https://www.reddit.com/r/chia/comments/n2lren/thoughts_on_a_hdd_shortage_from_an_industry/
133 comments
Chia claims to be a more green solution. Even going as far as to call their white paper a "green paper." Not sure anyone told them that burning through hard drives isn't very green either.
[1] https://www.chia.net/greenpaper/
[1] https://www.chia.net/greenpaper/
Yeah, all the electricity savings is just going to go towards buying (aka manufacturing) more hard drives.
[deleted]
Ethereum are the GPU's. Bitcoin utilizes ASIC's designed only for Bitcoin. This is an eventual e-waste issue, but not a GPU supply issue.
Nobody cares which coin of the week is used, it is time to get rid of the crypto garbage.
There was a period between about 2011 and 2014 when the fastest way to mine bitcoin was on a GPU and it did cause a shortage in cards:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/11/amds-graph...
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/12/11/amds-graph...
Ah yes, those days, I mined two bitcoins and sold them for $100, then got bored...
there is no "eventual E-Waste issue" .. there has been an E-Waste issue for 20+ years. Ridiculous amounts of fresh water, electricity, transport fuel and other non-renewables have been poured into the PC industry since most here were born. The damage that this does is proportional to a few things, like the source of the electricity and the containment of the material and "end of life" .. Consumer electronics have been living way past their means for decades, but in the age of COMDEX Las Vegas, as long as the quarterly results match, few in a decision-making role actually care.
“Chia” means “shat” in French.
"Chia" also refers to the plant "Salvia hispanica", that's Nahuatl/Mexicano.
I'm from the U.S., and when I hear/read "Chia", I think of the Chia Pet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Pet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_Pet
They are one and the same!
In French too [1]. «Chia» as “shat” is a theoretical conjugation of the slang word «chier» that you'll never meet in practice.
[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_(plante)
[1]: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chia_(plante)
As is the past form "shat" in English, for that matter.
Quite frankly, I'd rather eat shit.
You mean chier, the verb. Chia means chia
Well the simple past tense / 3rd person of "chier" is precisely "chia", spelled exactly like that. The herb/plant "chia" always sounds a bit weird to my ears because it makes me think of the verb tense... "Il chia" / "He shat". So GP is totally correct.
GP is maybe “technically” correct, but given that «chier» is a slang verb mostly used orally while passé simple is almost never used orally and never in casual context, which means that you'll never use that tense on this verb in practice. “He shat” will 99.99% of the time be translated to «il a chié» (passé composé).
Thanks. I’ve never in my life heard “il chia”. And you wouldn’t formally write something so informal.
Anyone curious can verify that google translate doesn’t even understand “il chia” and google translate is quite good on French.
Anyone curious can verify that google translate doesn’t even understand “il chia” and google translate is quite good on French.
It's precisely the juxtaposition of high grammar and low slang that makes it so humorous.
Someone cares enough to have compiled the conjugation: https://la-conjugaison.nouvelobs.com/du/verbe/chier.php
and it's a really old word, used frequently by Rabelais, for instance.
Someone cares enough to have compiled the conjugation: https://la-conjugaison.nouvelobs.com/du/verbe/chier.php
and it's a really old word, used frequently by Rabelais, for instance.
Do you mean "chié"? (shee-eh)
Uh, the last time I checked, Bitcoin mining typically uses ASICs. GPUs are not involved.
Last I checked, miners aren’t mining Bitcoin anymore. But miners are making the GPU shortage worse.
Miners are definitely still mining bitcoin.
You don't think this is exciting? I couldn't care less about what causes a surge in demand, but if there is substantial pressure on the HDD manufacturers to improve any of the following, consumers will only benefit:
* lower price points ($/GB);
* speed;
* size;
* availability / supply.
Of course, it will suck in the short term if HDDs become much harder to find, but that should only last as long as the manufacturers believe this to be a short term trend.
* lower price points ($/GB);
* speed;
* size;
* availability / supply.
Of course, it will suck in the short term if HDDs become much harder to find, but that should only last as long as the manufacturers believe this to be a short term trend.
[deleted]
In that thread, they do the math on Chia's current effect, and it is tiny.
Not to say it won't grow to become a problem but even at 1EB of storage, it's not a problem:
> Data center storage growth is round 2-2.5 EB/day. The 1.4 EB used by Chia so far is less than one day's data center growth.
I'm not defending yet another wasteful use of cryptocurrency ... first it was the GPUs now its the SSDs.
Not to say it won't grow to become a problem but even at 1EB of storage, it's not a problem:
> Data center storage growth is round 2-2.5 EB/day. The 1.4 EB used by Chia so far is less than one day's data center growth.
I'm not defending yet another wasteful use of cryptocurrency ... first it was the GPUs now its the SSDs.
Until we live in some horrid future where computers no longer have storage and we all use the cloud, consumers need to buy HDDs too. Not just data centers. This is a retail-level issue, not a data center growth issue. It's the same as how GPUs aren't on shelves because people use them to mine -- ASICs are better but the ASIC game is hard for retail "miners" to get into.
It's really important that manufacturers start responding to cryptocurrency induced shortages with auctions.
The demand from the cryptocurrency users will be extremely high until they've spent a particular amount in total. They can do that with 1000 units, or with 5000 units.
Obviously auctioning off units would be bad for having predictable prices for retail customers but that is irrelevant if aggressive miner buying is buying up all the supply.
Moreover, shareholders at the manufacturers should be demanding it: they're leaving money on the table.
The demand from the cryptocurrency users will be extremely high until they've spent a particular amount in total. They can do that with 1000 units, or with 5000 units.
Obviously auctioning off units would be bad for having predictable prices for retail customers but that is irrelevant if aggressive miner buying is buying up all the supply.
Moreover, shareholders at the manufacturers should be demanding it: they're leaving money on the table.
This sounds great. Hard drive prices will start increasing until building a computer is prohibitively expensive unless you're a large scale OEM that can make bulk contracts. Another example of cryptocurrency empowering individuals.
1) Nvidia et al. have to work with Big Retail (tm) [i.e. Walmart, Target, Best Buy]. Big Retail isn't interested in doing auctions. They function off the tried and true MSRP model. No matter how much money is being left on the table. This applies just as much to GPUs and hard drives as it does to the recent console shortages.
I've worked with Big Retail execs before. They're old school and conservative (in the business sense).
In a smoke filled CES hotel room they shook hands on a deal of X for $Y, and that's how it's going to stay for the next decade.
2) Risk. These shortages and cryptocurrency demand spikes are a blip on the history of these companies. It'd be stupid to suddenly change their entire business models and retail relationships for something that could disappear next month.
As much as I believe cryptocurrency and hence mining is here to stay, I can't fault these companies for not believing the same and acting accordingly. Especially given the cycles of boom and bust that cryptocurrencies have gone through.
I've worked with Big Retail execs before. They're old school and conservative (in the business sense).
In a smoke filled CES hotel room they shook hands on a deal of X for $Y, and that's how it's going to stay for the next decade.
2) Risk. These shortages and cryptocurrency demand spikes are a blip on the history of these companies. It'd be stupid to suddenly change their entire business models and retail relationships for something that could disappear next month.
As much as I believe cryptocurrency and hence mining is here to stay, I can't fault these companies for not believing the same and acting accordingly. Especially given the cycles of boom and bust that cryptocurrencies have gone through.
Miner demand for cards alone exceed all big retail sales. Sorry, but Walmart, Target and Best Buy can be made irrelevant now.
Burning your regular customers is terrible business practice. It's not always about the money.
Also, remember when Martin Shkreli increased the price of an anti-parasitic drug by 5000%? That upset a lot of people, and arguably it's what put him in jail. Of course, HDDs are not quite the same as vital medicine.
Also, remember when Martin Shkreli increased the price of an anti-parasitic drug by 5000%? That upset a lot of people, and arguably it's what put him in jail. Of course, HDDs are not quite the same as vital medicine.
An auction is not an arbitrary increase just because you can. It’s the exact opposite- a natural market where supply and demand reach the optimal price.
Yeah it’s bad for regular customers, but if there’s no supply then what would they be able to get anyway?
Yeah it’s bad for regular customers, but if there’s no supply then what would they be able to get anyway?
Regular customers usually have long-term contracts and preferential treatment. Nobody in their right mind is going to show them the middle finger.
But for them, availability will also be limited, and next-term prices will get higher.
Also, increasing production of a highly-demanded item is not unheard of! But it will take months.
But for them, availability will also be limited, and next-term prices will get higher.
Also, increasing production of a highly-demanded item is not unheard of! But it will take months.
This is asinine. You would be making the product only available to those who can turn the highest profit from it and would lose the rest of your customer base to your competitor who is smart enough to not use an auction model. The entire cash flow would come from one narrow sector which would eventually collapse, leaving you with no customers. Business models evolve toward efficiency, and there is a good reason no one is doing this.
>You would be making the product only available to those who can turn the highest profit from it and would lose the rest of your customer base to your competitor who is smart enough to not use an auction model
Auction sucks because it drives the price of goods up, but you know what's worse than prices going up? Prices going to infinity because they're out of stock.
Auction sucks because it drives the price of goods up, but you know what's worse than prices going up? Prices going to infinity because they're out of stock.
That sounds like a one-shot model. Auctions for mass-produced goods would be per batch. Nullc's argument is that driving up the price of auctions would exhaust whatever cash pile the miners are sitting on faster, which means they would gobble up fewer harddrives than they will if the prices are kept low.
::sigh::
The alternative is that the product is completely unavailable. This is currently the situation across a broad swath of GPUs. Every unit that becomes available is instantly snatched up, in some cases by people who've bribed the people doing stocking at the distributors.
That is asinine. Yes, auctioning the limited supply off is also obnoxious but it is a strictly no worse than being entirely unavailable. Auctioning it of also has the benefit of depleting the uncontrolled demand faster (which is often taking the form of 'buy $x million in parts, however much we can get'). It potentially helps expand the supply (though unfortunately lead times and tooling make it hard to expand supply for surge loads), and for some cases where paying an astronomical price would be justified it would preserve some access to the product.
But the main motivation for my suggestion is to deplete the resource of the parties buying 100% of the stock as quickly as possibly so that the market can get back to normal. If that doesn't work it's because the money fountain is simply too large, and at some point the increased revenue will justify increasing the supply (even though doing so is risky).
> Business models evolve toward efficiency, and there is a good reason no one is doing this.
Sorry, but that isn't how 'evolve towards' works. Sure, eventually. But this kind of demand is unusual and surprising, it presents new challenges. There may be good reasons why what I suggest wouldn't be a good idea but those reasons are not "if this were a good idea they'd already be doing it".
The alternative is that the product is completely unavailable. This is currently the situation across a broad swath of GPUs. Every unit that becomes available is instantly snatched up, in some cases by people who've bribed the people doing stocking at the distributors.
That is asinine. Yes, auctioning the limited supply off is also obnoxious but it is a strictly no worse than being entirely unavailable. Auctioning it of also has the benefit of depleting the uncontrolled demand faster (which is often taking the form of 'buy $x million in parts, however much we can get'). It potentially helps expand the supply (though unfortunately lead times and tooling make it hard to expand supply for surge loads), and for some cases where paying an astronomical price would be justified it would preserve some access to the product.
But the main motivation for my suggestion is to deplete the resource of the parties buying 100% of the stock as quickly as possibly so that the market can get back to normal. If that doesn't work it's because the money fountain is simply too large, and at some point the increased revenue will justify increasing the supply (even though doing so is risky).
> Business models evolve toward efficiency, and there is a good reason no one is doing this.
Sorry, but that isn't how 'evolve towards' works. Sure, eventually. But this kind of demand is unusual and surprising, it presents new challenges. There may be good reasons why what I suggest wouldn't be a good idea but those reasons are not "if this were a good idea they'd already be doing it".
You realize capitalism is a system for allocating scare goods, right? An auction model means manufacturers benefit directly, and unless they're in a cartel, the high prices incentivize them to increase production. We see this happen all the time in the oil marker with marginal producers entering and exiting the market. Without an auction, anyone lucky enough to win the HDD lottery will have the same incentive, only they'll sell it on ebay.
The problem is the network effect. With GPUs, substantial effort has been done to build products and tools on top of Nvidia's proprietary framework (CUDA). The community invested in a proprietary system under the understanding that Nvidia will supply the hardware and not monopolize this investment.
Should the community have divested from Nvidia's proprietary format and spread its resources on multiple platforms? Concentrating effort can benefit everyone, but it requires trust.
In addition, part of this community investment was funded by government research grants, adding a legal/public policy aspect to the issue. Should taxpayer money be spent on creating private, abusive, monopolies?
Should the community have divested from Nvidia's proprietary format and spread its resources on multiple platforms? Concentrating effort can benefit everyone, but it requires trust.
In addition, part of this community investment was funded by government research grants, adding a legal/public policy aspect to the issue. Should taxpayer money be spent on creating private, abusive, monopolies?
TIL all it takes to be a reputable "industry insider" is an anonymous reddit account.
The scary thing is, I don't know if I can trust him less than any 'reputable newspaper'. At least if this he says dumb things, someone on HN will call him out. The reputable source has only one voice, it will say anything that brings in extra money, and lots of invisible third parties will try to influence it.
"The scary thing is, I don't know if I can trust him less than any 'reputable newspaper'."
Do you not know how professional journalism functions? You can verify decades of history with very limited retractions. There's good reason why people trust the New York Times.
Do you not know how professional journalism functions? You can verify decades of history with very limited retractions. There's good reason why people trust the New York Times.
Can't comment on the NYTimed, as I am not from the USA. But there is a huge rift between usefull and not wrong.
There is the whole Gell-Mann amnesia thing. There is the basic selection of which news is important and which facts are relevant for it. There is the bias in reporting. Each of these can make an article untrustworthy without needing any retraction.
There is the whole Gell-Mann amnesia thing. There is the basic selection of which news is important and which facts are relevant for it. There is the bias in reporting. Each of these can make an article untrustworthy without needing any retraction.
I was in the storage industry (demand side) for many years and nothing the Reddit poster said is wrong. S/he correctly described the allocation process with regard to retail channels and large direct customers, as well as the non-fungibility of read/write heads. Their speculation about whether there will be a shortage is just that—speculation.
Do you really need to be an "industry insider" to make any of their observations? Nothing they said seems to require they be actual "industry insider".
Exactly. These are all check-able facts (not, e.g., allegations of secret dealings or something). The fact that he works in the industry is what allows him to write this compactly; it's not proof of correctness.
Says 'humaniania'
I've never built a PC. I expect the crytpocurency bubble to collapse because my tech ignorant accountant friend asked what I know about building a crypto mining rig.
What should I read to prepare myself to take advantage of the cheap used high end hardware that will hit the market do build a Windows or Linux system for my own pleasure.
What should I read to prepare myself to take advantage of the cheap used high end hardware that will hit the market do build a Windows or Linux system for my own pleasure.
Coinbase had IPO, meaning serious business bought their shares, hedge and pension funds - I would be careful expecting any kind of normalcy in the next 2-3 years.
Coinbase had a direct listing. There was no roadshow to line up institutional investors. I'm sure some big-time investors bought shares, but I'm sure some retail ones did, too. You know who sold? Early Coinbase investors and employees.
That's normal. The primary moneymaking product of small startups is ... stock.
>serious business bought their shares, hedge and pension funds
Your assuming that proves a point, but it doesn't.
Your assuming that proves a point, but it doesn't.
I wouldn't count on it collapsing any time soon. Not with everyone from Visa to Time magazine jumping on the bandwagon
>I've never built a PC.
Definitely worthwhile. Basically lego for adults. Tons of good info here
https://old.reddit.com/r/buildapc/
>I've never built a PC.
Definitely worthwhile. Basically lego for adults. Tons of good info here
https://old.reddit.com/r/buildapc/
There is a well known curse to Time/Newsweek/Businessweek covers. Things that make the front page there tend to do worse.
No guarantee, but it’s more of an anti signal.
No guarantee, but it’s more of an anti signal.
That's regression to the mean and perfectly normal, there's a whole science associated with it. It's not a curse or even specific to any outlet. This is a suitable example: https://web.archive.org/web/20210121061334/http://wmbriggs.c...
Right. I just meant being in Time is not much of a signal
I meant Time accepts BTC for subscriptions now...not Time as in BTC making Time cover
>I wouldn't count on it collapsing any time soon. Not with everyone from Visa to Time magazine jumping on the bandwagon
"Jump on the bandwagon" Meaning: to support a cause only because it is popular to do so.
Sounds like a bubble. I encourage more people to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not in a hurry to get my new computer and the bigger the bubble gets the more cheap hardware will be available when it pops.
https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/why-do-we-say...
"Jump on the bandwagon" Meaning: to support a cause only because it is popular to do so.
Sounds like a bubble. I encourage more people to jump on the bandwagon. I'm not in a hurry to get my new computer and the bigger the bubble gets the more cheap hardware will be available when it pops.
https://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/lessons/why-do-we-say...
Cryptocurrency is a logical response to central banks around the world trying to print their way out of their bad decisions instead of putting the ultra wealthy in their place.
That's why crypto isn't going anywhere and this will only get worse.
That's why crypto isn't going anywhere and this will only get worse.
>Cryptocurrency is a logical response to central banks around the world trying to print their way out of their bad decisions instead of putting the ultra wealthy in their place.
I don't understand what you're trying to say. To me this sounds like political rhetoric not an argument.
Are you saying that cryptocurrency can replace central banks? Are you saying that cryptocurrency is some kind of revenge or punishment against central banks and wealthy? Are you saying something else??
I don't understand what you're trying to say. To me this sounds like political rhetoric not an argument.
Are you saying that cryptocurrency can replace central banks? Are you saying that cryptocurrency is some kind of revenge or punishment against central banks and wealthy? Are you saying something else??
I wouldn't count on the cheap hardware, it may be pretty much broken after endless full power use for mining.
I mined bitcoin, litecoin and later dogecoin on a bunch of workstations in a hot humid garage in Houston, Texas for years straight. I gave one of the workstations to a friend when I retired from mining in 2013 or so. It was still running fine when he retired it last year.
Consumer electronics are much more durable than you would imagine.
Then maybe I was just unlucky, broke one GPU mining Bitcoin.
Miners usually undervolt the GPUs to mine at peak efficiency, not peak performance and power consumption. Since chip wear correlates with power usage and heat production, GPU usage for mining is actually much less taxing for the hardware than typical gaming use with its frequent overclocking and rapid alterations between low and maximum power use.
It is also important to realize the wear on the chips is relevant on the order of 100 years. What fails on the order of 1-5 years are capacitors and insulation on the power supply coil windings and fan motor windings, but the latter only sometimes.
Capacitors notably derate exponentially with increasing temperature as do many other things.
Capacitors notably derate exponentially with increasing temperature as do many other things.
To echo the other commenters, mining is pretty gentle on GPUs insofar as constant use goes. ETH is memory bandwidth limited, so cards can be heavily undervolted and underclocked (while overclocking memory) saving power without negatively affecting hashrate. More power is wasteful. Typical ETH mining GPU temps are around 60C. I'd feel ok about buying a used card off someone who knows what they're doing mining.
The 3080 and 3090 are the singular exception. The GDDR6X runs extremely hot and frankly I think it's going to cause a bunch of early failures for even non-mining cards.
The 3080 and 3090 are the singular exception. The GDDR6X runs extremely hot and frankly I think it's going to cause a bunch of early failures for even non-mining cards.
There are quite a few (good) comments here focusing on the crypto aspect of this HDD supply shortage.
That aside, to those of you that are scanning the comments here without having actually read the OP's reddit link - I'd urge you to read the linked page.
It is an incredibly insightful summary of the HDD supply chain.
(Whether it was indeed written by an "industry insider" or not is irrelevant; their analysis of the HDD market is highly informative)
That aside, to those of you that are scanning the comments here without having actually read the OP's reddit link - I'd urge you to read the linked page.
It is an incredibly insightful summary of the HDD supply chain.
(Whether it was indeed written by an "industry insider" or not is irrelevant; their analysis of the HDD market is highly informative)
Hm, based on this I ordered 1x16TB and 2x14TB HDD drives right away (the maximum allowed at that seller, ~60% surcharge to the price from a week ago). If HDDs/SSDs end up as obtainable as GPUs, we are going to experience some serious troubles... I somehow managed to get 3x3090FE but that was just super lucky timing.
I am not sure what grad student Deep Learning researchers are going to do?
I am not sure what grad student Deep Learning researchers are going to do?
Maybe they finally turn their attention to models of manageable complexity and stop trying to create magic with models of enormous size that even in theory benefit only Big Adtech. Even mass surveillance requires rather small models.
"we expect a supply shortage lasting years again" but NFT's are still a better investment opportunity than a new hard drive manufacturer.
It's interesting that that's precisely where we are with video cards-- the easiest way to get one is to buy a prebuilt system from any of the big names.
It's really not much of a stretch to see HDs go to exactly that same pressure point.
It's really not much of a stretch to see HDs go to exactly that same pressure point.
And getting a prebuilt to get a video card is itself becoming hard at this point. The big names are pushing estimated delivery dates for prebuilts with 30 series cards out to June or July at this point.
I suppose getting a card in July in a prebuilt is still better than not getting a card on its own.
While I was digging around, it looks like some of the laptops with 30 series in them are even at the "ETA: One day soon!" point.
I suppose getting a card in July in a prebuilt is still better than not getting a card on its own.
While I was digging around, it looks like some of the laptops with 30 series in them are even at the "ETA: One day soon!" point.
It's also next to impossible to get workstation boards with many PCIe slots and now that spreads even to "creator" boards. I guess mining is going to eat it all.
Our IT guy told us, that (about 10pcs) the Dell machines he ordered (T5810 or something similar) a couple of weeks ago will ship in July earliest(although the online shops states better delivery times). So there could be some shortage too or at least logistical problems...
It's 2011 again...
It took ~7 years before price went back to what they were.
The flood that shutdown that Thai HD motor plant was the start of SSDs' takeover.
I'm not so sure, in 2012 me and a lot of friends switched to SSD because it made the computer so much faster, not because there was a HDD shortage. And the tech press at the time was full of articles about how amazing SSDs are and how everybody should get one.
They were always better, but the price delta narrowed a lot because of HD price increases.
If you only had space for 1 drive, you did have to choose between small capacity with high speed vs. High capacity and slower speeds.
Plus (real or mythical) reliability issues with new tech.
If you only had space for 1 drive, you did have to choose between small capacity with high speed vs. High capacity and slower speeds.
Plus (real or mythical) reliability issues with new tech.
But nobody was talking about the price delta then.
The narrative was "for 300 bucks you can make your computer so much faster, best investment ever". No mention about increasing HDD prices, nobody cared.
The narrative was "for 300 bucks you can make your computer so much faster, best investment ever". No mention about increasing HDD prices, nobody cared.
If you’re made of money sure. For others, $300 for storage is a lot, but if it’s vs $200 vs $100, that has an impact on willingness to pay $300.
So if this isn't causing a real shortage of hard disks, why did I get stung for £70 more for my second 10TB hard disk that cost less a month ago?
You could probably take this and replace HDD with SSD or RAM and it would be just as correct.
Well, the primary difference is that cloud providers go through HDDs almost as consumables, while RAM and SSD are generally more long lasting.
Contracts are set up in similar ways, but HDDs in general have more constraints baked in those contracts.
Contracts are set up in similar ways, but HDDs in general have more constraints baked in those contracts.
I don't believe these terms are interchangeable, especially when this writeup is in response to Chia.
Is it possible SSD or RAM have a similar bottleneck like read/write heads? Yes, but I don't know the answer.
Is it possible SSD or RAM have a similar bottleneck like read/write heads? Yes, but I don't know the answer.
> Is it possible SSD or RAM have a similar bottleneck like read/write heads?
Yes. You could replace "read/write heads" with "chips" and it'd apply just as easily to SSD and RAM. Texas's freak weather shut down Samsung's Texas fab which caused a shortage of SSD controller chips, for example. After the February outage, I don't think they started to tape out again until April.
Yes. You could replace "read/write heads" with "chips" and it'd apply just as easily to SSD and RAM. Texas's freak weather shut down Samsung's Texas fab which caused a shortage of SSD controller chips, for example. After the February outage, I don't think they started to tape out again until April.
Sample size 1: every 3 months I need to buy a large hard drive (14TB+). I buy external USB ones since they are the cheapest.
Since it was due, in the last couple of weeks I was scanning prices in Romania daily, in case I get lucky with a discount. In the last week, prices surged 60-100%, and stock disappeared for 4 TB+.
I panicked and after a lot of scanning I managed to buy a slightly smaller one than I needed with just a 20% surcharge.
Prices on Amazon UK are also out of control.
So now we are out of chips, CPUs, GPUs and hard drives. What a time to be alive :)
PS: I would love to hear Backblaze take on this shortage.
Since it was due, in the last couple of weeks I was scanning prices in Romania daily, in case I get lucky with a discount. In the last week, prices surged 60-100%, and stock disappeared for 4 TB+.
I panicked and after a lot of scanning I managed to buy a slightly smaller one than I needed with just a 20% surcharge.
Prices on Amazon UK are also out of control.
So now we are out of chips, CPUs, GPUs and hard drives. What a time to be alive :)
PS: I would love to hear Backblaze take on this shortage.
Shortages are good.
It's the perfect time to set up manufacturing capability, so nationalists can be happy.
It's a good time to push for hire wages, workers should do it.
If there is some alternative industrial process, now's the time to try it.
This is no 70s oil moment, because there's no indication fewer widgets are being produced than prepandemic.
It's the perfect time to set up manufacturing capability, so nationalists can be happy.
It's a good time to push for hire wages, workers should do it.
If there is some alternative industrial process, now's the time to try it.
This is no 70s oil moment, because there's no indication fewer widgets are being produced than prepandemic.
>It's the perfect time to set up manufacturing capability, so nationalists can be happy.
>If there is some alternative industrial process, now's the time to try it.
wouldn't this take years?
>It's a good time to push for hire wages, workers should do it.
This is just speculation on my part, but I suspect hard drive manufacturing is much more labor intensive than capital intensive. Therefore I doubt this will translate into higher wages.
>If there is some alternative industrial process, now's the time to try it.
wouldn't this take years?
>It's a good time to push for hire wages, workers should do it.
This is just speculation on my part, but I suspect hard drive manufacturing is much more labor intensive than capital intensive. Therefore I doubt this will translate into higher wages.
[deleted]
Companies won't invest in factories if they think the demand is temporary. Because by the time they come online the demand will be gone.
I think it’s a logistics problem, so adding more supply via new factories (unless local) won’t resolve the problem if the goods can’t be shipped.
This doesn't change that the shortages are caused by processes with infinite appetites. The demand grows with the supply, for hardware used by cryptocurrencies. To me it looks like the polar opposite of sustainability, which is distressing.
I just don’t get the sustainability argument..
Who decided that all computing must be for a sustainable or meaningful purpose? Cryptocurrency, as wasteful as it might appear, is like a drop in the ocean compared to the data centers of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. Likes on Facebook provide much less value to society than a distributed currency that circumvents central control over the financial system.
Second, Crypto doesn’t exist in a vacuum. How much “energy” does it take to disassemble a mountain and suck out precious metals or diamonds? How much energy does it take to manufacture all the coins and paper money the world over? And how many innocent people have been gunned down for the petrodollar or some other dispute over fiat currency?
Who decided that all computing must be for a sustainable or meaningful purpose? Cryptocurrency, as wasteful as it might appear, is like a drop in the ocean compared to the data centers of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc. Likes on Facebook provide much less value to society than a distributed currency that circumvents central control over the financial system.
Second, Crypto doesn’t exist in a vacuum. How much “energy” does it take to disassemble a mountain and suck out precious metals or diamonds? How much energy does it take to manufacture all the coins and paper money the world over? And how many innocent people have been gunned down for the petrodollar or some other dispute over fiat currency?
> Cryptocurrency, as wasteful as it might appear, is like a drop in the ocean compared to the data centers of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
It isn't, as 'mytherin points out.
> Likes on Facebook provide much less value to society
That's absurdly untrue. For all the warts of big social media players, they still provide tremendous social value - rich long-distance communication, organizing ad-hoc groups of people (including, in particular, meatspace ones), improved exchange of news worldwide, making things easier for local commerce, ... I could go on. And while these services can, and are, being misused, they are still at least doing something useful.
> than a distributed currency that circumvents central control over the financial system.
Except it doesn't. But even if it did, this isn't necessarily a good idea in the first place.
> How much “energy” does it take to disassemble a mountain and suck out precious metals or diamonds?
Less than it takes to run Bitcoin, and it's also a one-time expense.
> How much energy does it take to manufacture all the coins and paper money the world over?
Not that much on an ongoing basis. It's also O(n) with respect to the amount of extra money you need in circulation. A trivial cost compared to what the upkeep would be if we tried to run the world economy on Bitcoin.
> And how many innocent people have been gunned down for the petrodollar or some other dispute over fiat currency?
People kill other people for profit. That's a fact of life, independent of the way money is represented. That they don't kill each other over crypto says only one thing: that right now, cryptocurrencies are completely irrelevant to the economy. If crypto ever sees any serious adoption, a proportional body count will follow.
(Also, I imagine the number for Bitcoin is already greater than zero, given that cryptocurrencies are disproportionally popular with criminals compared to general population.)
It isn't, as 'mytherin points out.
> Likes on Facebook provide much less value to society
That's absurdly untrue. For all the warts of big social media players, they still provide tremendous social value - rich long-distance communication, organizing ad-hoc groups of people (including, in particular, meatspace ones), improved exchange of news worldwide, making things easier for local commerce, ... I could go on. And while these services can, and are, being misused, they are still at least doing something useful.
> than a distributed currency that circumvents central control over the financial system.
Except it doesn't. But even if it did, this isn't necessarily a good idea in the first place.
> How much “energy” does it take to disassemble a mountain and suck out precious metals or diamonds?
Less than it takes to run Bitcoin, and it's also a one-time expense.
> How much energy does it take to manufacture all the coins and paper money the world over?
Not that much on an ongoing basis. It's also O(n) with respect to the amount of extra money you need in circulation. A trivial cost compared to what the upkeep would be if we tried to run the world economy on Bitcoin.
> And how many innocent people have been gunned down for the petrodollar or some other dispute over fiat currency?
People kill other people for profit. That's a fact of life, independent of the way money is represented. That they don't kill each other over crypto says only one thing: that right now, cryptocurrencies are completely irrelevant to the economy. If crypto ever sees any serious adoption, a proportional body count will follow.
(Also, I imagine the number for Bitcoin is already greater than zero, given that cryptocurrencies are disproportionally popular with criminals compared to general population.)
> People kill other people for profit. That's a fact of life, independent of the way money is represented. That they don't kill each other over crypto says only one thing: that right now, cryptocurrencies are completely irrelevant to the economy. If crypto ever sees any serious adoption, a proportional body count will follow.
This is a fascinating insight I had not considered.
This is a fascinating insight I had not considered.
> Not that much on an ongoing basis. It's also O(n) with respect to the amount of extra money you need in circulation.
I think this isn't quite correct, but is even more in favor of fiat currency. Minting money costs in proportion to the number of bills/coins. If more value is needed, the denomination being printed can be changed to represent more value with the same cost.
On the other hand, cryptocurrencies require wasting resources proportional to the total value represented by them. Any less and they are vulnerable to attacks. Therefore, (as I'm sure will come as a shock to nobody) this is another way that cryptocurrencies scale worse than fiat.
I think this isn't quite correct, but is even more in favor of fiat currency. Minting money costs in proportion to the number of bills/coins. If more value is needed, the denomination being printed can be changed to represent more value with the same cost.
On the other hand, cryptocurrencies require wasting resources proportional to the total value represented by them. Any less and they are vulnerable to attacks. Therefore, (as I'm sure will come as a shock to nobody) this is another way that cryptocurrencies scale worse than fiat.
Supplies of most crypto currencies are finite, and the currencies appreciate in general, see bitcoin and etherium.
Supplies of most fiat currencies are effectively infinite, and the currencies depreciate in general, see virtually anything from USD to the currency of Zimbabwe.
Supplies of most fiat currencies are effectively infinite, and the currencies depreciate in general, see virtually anything from USD to the currency of Zimbabwe.
While true, that's a bit of a non sequitur. The value represented by a currency isn't measured in units of that currency, but in terms of what can be bought with that currency. If that purchasing power goes up, then so does the incentive for launching an attack. Therefore, to maintain bitcoin's security, there must be a corresponding increase in mining costs to prevent such an attack from occurring.
Bitcoin requires energy expenditure proportional to the value represented by bitcoin. Anything less, and it is vulnerable to attack. Bitcoin fundamentally does not scale.
Bitcoin requires energy expenditure proportional to the value represented by bitcoin. Anything less, and it is vulnerable to attack. Bitcoin fundamentally does not scale.
Very well written
Thank you.
I do think there is a lot of value in cryptocurrency research. The theoretical insights gained into ways of provably ensuring consensus in an untrusted environment, or tamper-proofing information, are already useful.
But that could all be done in a research setting (as it mostly already is) - we don't need every piece of such research to be immediately deployed in the form of a get rich quick scheme. So I'd strongly support an official, government-backed moratorium on the use of all cryptocurrencies, until researchers figure out a way to make one that isn't an exponentially growing, insatiable power sink.
We can test out the research incrementally in form of systems that don't pay people to grow chains. Like some of the project ideas I've seen thrown around big, non-financial companies - e.g. making it easier to ensure supply chain integrity. While in general I'm strongly suspicious of anything that even mentions "blockchain", some of these ideas don't look that stupid (but then, I'm not a domain expert in these areas, so the blockchain-backed solutions may all just be hot air).
I do think there is a lot of value in cryptocurrency research. The theoretical insights gained into ways of provably ensuring consensus in an untrusted environment, or tamper-proofing information, are already useful.
But that could all be done in a research setting (as it mostly already is) - we don't need every piece of such research to be immediately deployed in the form of a get rich quick scheme. So I'd strongly support an official, government-backed moratorium on the use of all cryptocurrencies, until researchers figure out a way to make one that isn't an exponentially growing, insatiable power sink.
We can test out the research incrementally in form of systems that don't pay people to grow chains. Like some of the project ideas I've seen thrown around big, non-financial companies - e.g. making it easier to ensure supply chain integrity. While in general I'm strongly suspicious of anything that even mentions "blockchain", some of these ideas don't look that stupid (but then, I'm not a domain expert in these areas, so the blockchain-backed solutions may all just be hot air).
>Cryptocurrency, as wasteful as it might appear, is like a drop in the ocean compared to the data centers of Google, Facebook, Microsoft, etc.
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/first-seven-customers-5nm-...
Are you sure? Bitmain is competing for 5nm wafers against the largest electronics manufacturers in the world.
https://www.eenewseurope.com/news/first-seven-customers-5nm-...
Are you sure? Bitmain is competing for 5nm wafers against the largest electronics manufacturers in the world.
Bitcoin alone is estimated to use around 129 TWh of electricity [1], compared to 12 TWh for Google or 200 TWh for literally all other data centers [2]. Hardly a drop in the bucket, unless that drop is the size of 10 buckets. Surely not even the most hardcore cryptocurrency enthusiast would argue that crypto provides anywhere near the utility of the rest of the entire internet.
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-power-consu...
[2] https://www.deccanherald.com/business/why-bitcoin-uses-10-ti...
[1] https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-power-consu...
[2] https://www.deccanherald.com/business/why-bitcoin-uses-10-ti...
[deleted]
My sample size of 1 shows little to no move, although I wasn't looking at drives as large as you.
In my case I was having my eyes on 5 TB 2.5" drives. I don't need them, I'd just maybe like them, so I haven't pulled the trigger, but I have them set aside on Amazon France. The price has stayed within a few euros of 110 € for the last 2-3 months.
In my case I was having my eyes on 5 TB 2.5" drives. I don't need them, I'd just maybe like them, so I haven't pulled the trigger, but I have them set aside on Amazon France. The price has stayed within a few euros of 110 € for the last 2-3 months.
My advice would be to decide today if you want them or not. They are not going to get cheaper, and could get significantly more expensive in days.
Same here for the same product, but in Germany.
I'm not sure how pricing works where you live, but to get optimal pricing I usually have to wait a few months, or maybe even a year (black Friday). Given that all time lows for hard drive prices haven't budged much in the past few years, why buy every few months rather than stocking up when prices are low?
Anyways for my data point: there was some external hard drives on sale for 5-10% higher than "optimal" prices.
>and stock disappeared for 4 TB+.
That's strange because those drives have terrible TB/$ compared to 10+TB drives.
Anyways for my data point: there was some external hard drives on sale for 5-10% higher than "optimal" prices.
>and stock disappeared for 4 TB+.
That's strange because those drives have terrible TB/$ compared to 10+TB drives.
Opportunity cost. By keeping my cash in bitcoin I can now buy (well, not with this shortage) 5 times more hard drives than last black Friday.
> By keeping my cash in bitcoin I can now buy (well, not with this shortage) 5 times more hard drives than last black Friday.
Probably only 4 after you pay the appropriate capital gains taxes, I'd hope. :)
Probably only 4 after you pay the appropriate capital gains taxes, I'd hope. :)
If they have to. Not sure how it works in Romania, but in Germany you can sell coins held for 1 year or more without having to pay taxes.
My advice is to ignore anonymous new accounts making inflammatory and fear mongering statements.
Open Amazon and look up hard drive prices and availability.
This one is easy to fact check.
This one is easy to fact check.
They appear to be normally priced and readily available.
I just checked my Amazon order history right now. Last time I bought a Samsung Evo Plus 1 TB SSD was last August, 2020, for $189. Price right now if I buy it today is $159. Last HDD I bought was a 12 TB Seagate Ironwolf for $269, in October 2020. Today's price for the same drive is $325. It is out of stock, but says I can get it May 18th.
That's a very limited dataset, no?
CPU, GPU and Hard Drive.... guess we can have more dumb devices for now instead of everything IoT.
Wait until I unveil IoTCoin, it'll use PoIoT to verify the blockchain. Keep an eye out for my ICO!
/s (or is it?)
/s (or is it?)
HNT Hotspot Miners are uncomfortably close.
> Prices on Amazon UK are also out of control
...they are not. Sale last week for 8TB at £14/TB. I would say that prices are marginally higher than they were a few weeks ago...average prices are probably £16/TB at the top consumer end but supply is fine, this price is not particularly high historically, it is not unmanageable for individuals, SSDs prices are cratering (hint: buy stuff that doesn't have massive TBW, these consumer drives are unusuable for Chia...prices of this stuff has dropped by 20-30% in the past few months), and there is ample supply on other sites too (I believe the issue with Amazon is that they just ran some huge discounts on the external drives popular with consumers..they will be restocked in a week or so).
Also, you can pick up used stuff too. The supply of used drives with lots of life left is basically endless. And no-one is mining with 4TB drives.
...they are not. Sale last week for 8TB at £14/TB. I would say that prices are marginally higher than they were a few weeks ago...average prices are probably £16/TB at the top consumer end but supply is fine, this price is not particularly high historically, it is not unmanageable for individuals, SSDs prices are cratering (hint: buy stuff that doesn't have massive TBW, these consumer drives are unusuable for Chia...prices of this stuff has dropped by 20-30% in the past few months), and there is ample supply on other sites too (I believe the issue with Amazon is that they just ran some huge discounts on the external drives popular with consumers..they will be restocked in a week or so).
Also, you can pick up used stuff too. The supply of used drives with lots of life left is basically endless. And no-one is mining with 4TB drives.
In 2012 there was a shortage due to a flood.
They rented a truck and hit up all Costcos (I think it was) from Florida to I don't know where buying all of the drives they could. There was a limit on how many so it was a mission to do it.
Edit to add a link and change "Around 2010" to 2012,
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze_drive_farming/
They rented a truck and hit up all Costcos (I think it was) from Florida to I don't know where buying all of the drives they could. There was a limit on how many so it was a mission to do it.
Edit to add a link and change "Around 2010" to 2012,
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze_drive_farming/
I would strongly suspect that corporate bulk orders are not currently affected, so Backblaze won't care until it gets much, much more dire.
Thanks, I can’t view the original on my phone without the app because ‘Reddit can’t verify the community is not 18+’ which is a thinly veiled user hostile move-to-our app play. Shame on them.
Change the URL to old.reddit.com to dodge the age-gate (for now).
Now Chia wants to eat all the hard disks, and I am pissed. I declare war on hegemonizing proof-of-waste swarms. Burn the coins. I want that disk space back.