RBNZ deputy governor Geoff Bascand says low cost virtual currency payments could replace cash if trust, anonymity issues addressed

RBNZ deputy governor Geoff Bascand says low cost virtual currency payments could replace cash if trust, anonymity issues addressed

Low cost virtual currencies such as Bitcoin could ultimately replace cash if key attributes of trust and anonymity can be reliably and sustainably attained, Reserve Bank deputy governor and head of operations Geoff Bascand says.

In a weekend speech to the Royal Numismatic Society in Wellington, Bascand cited the development of virtual currencies, of which the best known is Bitcoin, as an alternative means of payment and store of value.

"It is a very low cost payment method with strong security features and usable for cross-border transactions, making it advantageous in some regards relative to more traditional payment mechanisms," said Bascand.

"As compared with cash, however, crypto-currencies currently have a number of drawbacks. In a transactional sense, their use is limited by the number of businesses willing to accept them for payment, currently a very small number. Large swings in the value of a Bitcoin means its purchasing power fluctuates considerably, and the finite number of bitcoins possible mean that their scarcity value tends to make them more like speculative investment commodities than transactional payment instruments."
Although bitcoins or other crypto-currencies are unlikely to replace cash in the foreseeable future, technological change is relentless and there's no reason cash-money must continue forever, Bascand said.

"Key attributes of trust, that the 'money' gives rise to settlement of the obligation, and anonymity, it is often efficient for the sale/purchase parties not to have to identify one another, must be met, but if these can be accomplished reliably and sustainably new technologies could supplant cash as we know it in years to come."

'Monitor and develop'

Central banks, such as the Reserve Bank, need not be overwhelmed by such innovations as virtual currencies.

"As they have to date, central banks around the world will need to monitor and develop their regulatory and currency operations roles to meet developments in technology, and the changing needs of the public," said Bascand.

His comments come after the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), an inter-governmental body established by the Group of Seven that sets policies and standards on anti-money laundering and combating terrorist financing, recently highlighted the money laundering and terrorism financing risks of virtual currencies. FATF did also say, however, virtual currency has the potential to improve payment efficiency and reduce transaction costs for payments and fund transfers.

Meanwhile, Bascand said the Reserve Bank was "committed to evolving products and services in line with and in anticipation of future currency demands." Although other means of payment keep growing, cash remains in strong demand, and the central bank must keep it current and viable for users.

"The evolution of New Zealand’s banknotes will take another step at the end of next year, when our next series of banknotes starts to enter circulation."

Canadian Banknote Company will design and print New Zealand banknotes for five years.

"From a financial perspective the bank has completed early forecasts of possible release and co-circulation scenarios. At a high level, the (Reserve) Bank spends approximately $5 million per annum on notes, and is preparing for incremental operating costs as a result of the new series of $43 million over the next five years. A firmer expense estimate will have to wait until industry consultation is completed over the next four to six months on release and repatriation strategies," Bascand said.

The Reserve Bank says it'll cost about $80 million over the next five years to print and distribute the new notes. See more on this here.

'Reports of the death of cash have been greatly exaggerated'

Bascand also touched on long running predictions of the demise of cash in society.
"The consistent growth of notes in circulation at 4.6% per year, in terms of note value; 2.5% per annum in terms of number of notes, has undone many such predictions of a fall in demand. Currency issued has grown by over 6% in the past year. Notwithstanding perceptions of the ‘end of cash’, the demand for cash has continued to grow, pretty much in line with the growth in the nominal economy. In New Zealand, notes in circulation rose from 1.5% of GDP in 1990 to 2% in 2001 and have remained about that level since," said Bascand.

"This growth has been mirrored in many other countries in recent years. In the UK, notes in circulation have grown by 6% per year since 1990, increasing from 2.4% of GDP in the mid 1990s to over 3.5% in 2013. The growth over the last twenty years arrested and partially reversed a long-term decline from almost 8% of GDP in 1960."

"Increased demand for cash is surprising given the growth of electronic payments. New Zealand has a very high penetration rate for electronic payment, with 280 debit or credit card transactions per person in 2013, which is exceeded only by Iceland and Norway," Bascand said.

This article was first published in our email for paying subscribers. See here for more details and to subscribe.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.


Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

The key word is .."trust"...
At that point.... all of us can be totally "tracked".... and "monitoired"....  
Scary thought...     I suppose we are naturally haeding that way....  BUT....  having a cash currency ..., for me, ....   relates to having  a certain level of freedom..???

That's the last thing your owners want for you.
Working from the figures we have about 4,500 million cash in circulation (2% GDP), that represents a loan to the government (via the RB) from holders of cash. Seems like a pretty good deal for the government if it only costs $5million a year to service and it never has to be repaid. Can't see them being in any hurry to eliminate cash.

Absolutely correct Roelof as trust in the State and its organistaions continue to diminish at an increasing rate.The recent examples of privacy breaches by NSA, Google, experiments in manipulation by Facebook further sensitise people to their right to privacy being respected, how long before CCTV cmaeras are vandalised and demonstrations have participants wearing identical masks?

I dont agree. You say "state" yet then mention the private sector "Google, experiments in manipulation by Facebook" which has a far worse actual reputation than public organisations that answer to politicians and hence voters.  Private entities only answer to shareholder profit, seem un-restrianed and happily sell personal data and aim for teh best price no matter who its sold to (think bankruptcy, your data is an asset sold to the highest bidder) far worse IMHO.

facebook is backended by nsa, has been ever since about its third year when it kicked LJ to the gutter

The point is then though a private organisation is allowing it (or is forced to).  Now yes I can agree that the "land of the free" isnt, its Democracy a sick joke really.

Absolutely steven, its not like the state would ever breach someones privacy. That sort of thing may happen in the private sector for profit but never at government run organisation like ACC... uh wait... hang on...

Your comment isnt comparing apples with apples. There is a difference between systemic, constant and pervading breaches of privacy aka Facebook and what is I assume an individual event aka ACC. 
Take a counter point the GCSB got dragged over the coals from the dotcom fiasco, it got reported in the press and voters / public got annoyed and rightly so.  However I dont think the Govn treated it sternly enough, heads should have rolled.
Now I totally agree that our duty as a voter/citizen is to minimise the reach of the state into our private affairs and lives and make pollies know. 
However how many ppl willingly sign  up to the "free" things that track our spending habits?  I refuse on principle. Or the countdown card thing? if I dont get the discount btw I tell them to take it off the till so they use the shop card, usually works. Though my eldest has the best idea though, he gets a new countdown card every time he sees a special he wants, he has his friends doing it now as well....LOL.
How about any interest in the state collecting info to "help us"? such as serial numbers? I decline such requests unless there is a legal imperitive.
eg Do you have your address on your driving licence? I dont.

GCSB did not get dragged over the coals.  Oh you bad boys you broke the law, to punish you well change the law to make what you did legal so you can keep spying on us, and we'll broaden your powers so you can get a single warrent for a whole communication system, even though when the GCSB law was originally passed all the politicians stood up and hand on heart swore the GCSB would never ever be used to spy on new zealanders.

So go look for a party taht has a suitable GCSB policy/stance, ie which feeds into its up to us the voter to make this clear as not acceptable.

The magic Vote. Solves every problem... 

and the (better) alternative is?

Minimising jurisdiction.

1. You only know about those government breaches that got leaked.
2. No I dont have my address on my license, not due to privacy concerns but due to not wanting to waste money buying another license if I moved house (Anyway my ddress is on the electoral role, as I do vote).
3. I dont really care if someone knows what groceries I am buying or the brand of toothpaste I use. What I object to is some 'Nazi' psyco organisation, be that government or private enterprise looking over my shoulder at everything I say and do, and into matters that are nothing to do with them, for the purpose of 'just keeping an eye on me', incase there might be something I say, do, hear or smell, or someone I did associate with, that they disagree with....

1. and so? they may or may not exist, same applies to private industry of course...
3. In effect buying food is "them" having more information in profiling you, (which may then be sold and used to hassle you) hence I refuse all instances no matter how benign they seem. Yep, otherwise I agree.

The bit about 3 I don't like is the hidden cost, and that it results in narrowing of choices to only mainstream rubbish.

The strongest case for cryptocurrency is it's anominity.  Currencies like Darkcoin (decentralised) and others with Proof-of-Stake calculation are going to be hard for the State to track'n'tax.  That automatically gives them higher trade value.

the scarcity of botcoins is silliness.  If you knew the market you would know how many alt-coins there were and so "scarcity" is a laugh.  If fact if you had any clue, you'd realise that Bitcoin is currently standing in as a Gold standard for crypto's ... and real Gold's scarcity have never made it less stable, less secure or less valuable, even as a speculative investment vehicle.  In fact saying that it is spec, shows a lack of appreciation for such practices.  They are a profit sideline on a true backbone, rather than value in itself.

One real cryptocurrency killer is time for transaction.  It takes several "confirms" from the blockchain before a transaction is accepted.  As mining is less profitable there is less reason for transaction processors to continue to protest (normally this is countered by tuning down the padding features), as less hash power is available and less miners are independently processing blocks it will take longer for those confirms to come through.  right now it can take a minute or more for enough confirms in some altcurrencies, and you're not going to want that in your checkout lines.   Also crypto is become available for smaller processors (Android etc) but they're going to be running wallet functions, more than processing nodes, so some f2f transaction can be transferred to crypto but it still leaves a big gap of f2f transactions where it's not worth the architecture (at the moment - backroom PC & electronic wallet with till connectivity is not far away, and the true beauty of crypto is not that they have lawyers and bureaucrats on their side, but they do have the worlds best hardward and software builders).
Also there is the energy usage.
Also there is the altcurrency premine issues.  Since altcurrency is _actually_ the spec invest side, because their is no commodity or trade value, there is a bit of universal trust issue when a new currency is produced, as there's a good chance that some of it has already been pocketted by the development and marketing team.  While that's ok for their payment, it gets results in poor market sentiment (ie there's high chance any mined altcoin is going to get on a downward trend, and STAY that way.  Such predictability tends to make for poor spec invest, and since no-one wants to be left holding the cold potato, it can bomb a altcurrency really fast.

But mining mature crypto's is just not financially viable.... (the block reward is to low for time, energy and investment level)

Libertarains seems particualry keen on these bit coins things, yet gold for instance is (to me at least) far more in-destructable, non-technology and un-traceable.

Your visceral hatred for Libertarianism is very clear steven, but what is less clear is that you actually understand what Libertarianism is. 
Here is your opportunity to prove me wrong, though. 
Could you explain please why you think Libertarians would be keen on bit coins?

Actually no I have no "visceral hatred" for Libertarians.  I do however have a dislike for any extremist/fundimentalist. I simply dislike anyone who has no discernable humanity/care for others.
Ok, then, "some" libertarians seem keen on bitcions.

And what is it about libertarianism that makes you think libertarians have no care for others?
Certainly, a libertarian Government wouldn't /force/ you to care for others.  What sort of "care" is that - spending other people's money and resources, rather than one's own, on things one values?   But neither would it prevent you from doing so, if you wanted to.

Which is the difference between the societal systems.
and really your very words prove my point, there is no care of others only self.
By the same token there is nothing I need do to stop the poor and starving taking your possessions and hanging you from the nearest lampost.

" I simply dislike anyone who has no discernable humanity/care for others"

So you _are_ anti-government and pro-Libertarian then.
As that's a very Libertarian principle that that people come first, that those who do work and invest deserve the rewards of their efforts.  That government should be minimalistic as serve only to protect the direct public good (eg direct food safety) and to provide a true third party monitoring system (eg environmental monitoring, policing)  and to provide services to those truly unable (for no reason of their own) be unable to provide for themselves when they have no others who should be responsible for them (ie no family or friends).

Government is rule of law, controls people inspite of any beliefs or values the people may have, takes what it sees fit regards of what injury it causes, and places it's own personnel more important than the people it's supposed to serve.

Some cryptocoins have AES encryption and anti-triangulation features to stop governments or corporations hacking into other peoples' business.

I am actually a mixture as I am not so extreme in one drection that all others are negligable.
Libertarians isnt about ppl come first its about self comes first, there is a difference.
"That government should be minimalistic" indeed however I work on the principle of whatever works best should be used and not what dogma says must be used.

OK, what exactly is the difference between "self comes first" and "people come first"?   Given that "people" are a collection of individual "selfs".
Who is better placed to decide what I would most like out of life - me, or the Government?  Who is more motivated to pursue it - me, or the Government?   Where choices have to be made between things I would like but can't simultaneously have, who is most likely to make the choice most in line with my own preferences - me, or the Government?   Why, in other words, are "people" better off if their wellbeing is entrusted to an entity which knows little about them and has little motivation or means to find out, than if they take charge of their own wellbeing? 
You would rather I took care of other people's wellbeing than my own - well, how does that make those other people better off?  Given that I don't know what their preferences are.  And while I am making a mess of organising those other people's lives for them, who is looking after my wellbeing - and are they likely to make a better job of looking after my wellbeing than I would myself?

"Who is better placed to decide what I would most like out of life - me, or the Government?"

well the government of course, because they are the selected representives who use your money to pay experts to tell you what is good for you and what you will get out of life.
Becuase they are experts have have things written down that they agree on, they must be right.  After all you are only one person, and probably a selfish profit-maker at that.  

There are several degree's of Libertarism.

Most are people come first, government helping themselves comes much futher back.

The self come first are very rarely found in Libertarianism, as self first means zero trade, which won't work for Libertarian lifestyles.  Thus fair trade is desired.

Under Government first, the self-first is extremely common, although masked with rhetoric.  It's we need to look after the poor and the dependent and reward the "leaders" (...which just happened to be the demographic voting themselves a big chunk of someone else's pie).  Note that the leaders don't do the work, carry any risk, nor have skin in the game.

  Those doing the work to get ahead are expected to follow the directions of the others, especially "laws" not put in place as a minimal direct need, but from social and voter pressure - to do that you need systems of enforcement (extra policing, state being defacto party to all contracts, regulation, measurement, reporting, oversight).   These people in Libertarian ideals -should- be the ones enjoying the profit, but in Governmental Rule they are seen as wild cannons, bucking the system, creating undesired inflation, and even being as rude as to make "profit".   One of the telling signs is that in Libertarian systems a profit says you're economically sustainable, and have excess to hoard or trade.  In non-Libertarian systems, a profit means you are taking from the State or Community, and that to be "fair" you must give your profit to someone who didn't earn it.

Well, to be fair :) Bitcoin does have many Libertarian followers.

 They seem to think minimalist government is good, and that government knowing and reaping currency (thus work) off them at every turn is a violation of their human rights.  That also ties to the Government relationship with central banking, which is a power structure disliked by many Libertarians.


Governments hate it because they don't know who has the money. Corporations hate it because they can't build up profiles on you the way card cards do. Basically, for those in power bitcoin has all the disadvantages of cash. 
For those not in power, bitcoin has various technical disadvantages, but anonymity sure ain't one of them.

Problem with cash is a country can change the bills at "whim" and make secret hoarding impracticle.  I suspect inside a decade we'll see such events.
Bitcoin also has to come out into  the real world to do much with it.
Gold, silver, platinum now have actual presence, sadly they are over-hyped / speculated on.

fait currency is based on faith in government.  Bitcoin is based on just faith.

Yep....have to go with the former of the 2, otherwise precious metals.

faith in government to do what??  steal your money and waste it?

Faith in government to ensure it serves its purpose as a store of wealth and a medium of exchange.  That is to not debase it, and to mandate it as legal tender.  No one has to accept bit-coin, it could loose favour in an overnight panic as everyone moves to lite-coin, and merchants will stop accepting them.  Merchants (in NZ) have to accept NZD.

If we have 2 options, fait currency or a bitcoin, I'll go Govn. If only beause it would take time and events to see that become a risk.  Bitcoin could just disappear in a few seconds.
If, yes you consider that Govn will destroy the value of their fiat currency at some point then the safe play is buy Precious metals fairly shortly before such an event becomes likely.

precious metals is no safer than cryptocurrency

uh no.
Precious metal has presense, it is a tangable, physical and durable asset.  It needs no energy to exist, it wont go obsolete, in effect it is in-destructable, though stealable, but then so are bitcoins.

"Precious metal has presense, it is a tangable, physical and durable asset"

So is dairy effluent.
At least you can grow something useful (ie food) with dairy effluent.
But that doesn't make it valuable.

Do some trade in durable bitcoin or alt-coins and you'll learn where metals value comes from.

Ah, now I agree with you, mining and refining precious metals is a tragic waste of energy we cant really afford.
Valuable? dont agree longer term IMHO. Looking forward (10~20years) I think food and its production is going to be critial and expensive.  During the rationing of WW2 farmers lived fairly well compared to the general population from what my Parents/Garandparents told me.  I dont think it will be "valuable" as I think it will be Govn controlled / regulated due to the over-population but if eating well and having a relatively good lifestyle is classed as "valuable" then yes.
My aim in life is to marry my eldest off to a farming gal, LOL, once he becomes an electrician.
Think he has is own plans however...

It's already starting.  but what happens is as soon is it becomes important Government seizes control.

When I was a kid I was explicitly told that farming was NZ's future as people will always need cheap food, and to make food you needed water, and NZ will _always_ have enough water, from our rainfall and many rivers.  This was our "big advantage" over our competitors (not science, engineering or cheap labour)

When I did some of the IndustryTrainingOrganisation training about 6 yrs ago, it was stressed that our big advantage of dairying as a food industry was our free access to plentiful good quality cold water.

So by controlling the water, they control the farmers.  Control the farmers, control the food. (banks controlling the financial side to keep them enslaved, councils and consent processes to control their business while skirting around the edges of legality (it's foundation illegal in NZ to tell a private business how to operate)

precious metals have intrinsic value.  They are desirable for decoration and for industrial purposes.  They also have a very long track record.
Bitcoins have no instrinsic value, and a very short track record.  Anyone can make up a new one, whereas you can't just make up a new precious metal to replace gold.

do you have any gold?

yes, in my computer circuit boards and mobile phone etc.  I don't own any as an investment though, nor for decoration, though i know pleanty of people with golden wedding bands etc.

I have 2 ounces Gold. And small amounts of Rh, Os & Ir.   Hoping to pick up an ounce of Pt, if the NZD drops (my fx profits are my "play money").

One of the things us "cowboys" find, is that it's easy to give the "right" answers, about tradng and metals etc.  And that's what a lot of experts and academics and media writers do - they quote other people and other peoples' theories, and the talk goes around and around confirming itself.  This sophistry is what passes for "hard science" these days.

Whereas a few cowboys hear the rhetoric and go out and test things for ourselves.  We're not scientists or experts knowing who said what, or up on the correct theory of the day.

We're just people who have got in and given it a go.

Buy some Au (gold) or even Ag (silver) at least two weeks pay, gross.
Then work out what to do next.  Even better - go mine it.

Then when you've actually tested the theory, and can tell me _really_ what the game is..
Then you will understand the limit of rare metals, and the advantage of bitcoin.
Until then it's my practical tested experience, up against your expert back theory.

why would you question "the experts"....

No, fiat currency is based on government theft, not faith.
I'm not sure what bitcoin is based on - a fixed supply and an electronic ledger/record of all transactions?

bitcoin is/was based on the willingness for some firms to swap electronics or goods/service for the credits (which if I follow the cold trail carefully enough, look like the bitcoin "purchases" were sponsored by a second party).  Sometimes the bitcoins were like challenge (military coin) and really just skite value - but if it's rare and fungible it can be used as a currency marker, which is the development of currency

you can pay for your internet in bit-coin with slingshot.  But the service is still priced in NZD and converted to bit-coin at the going rate, which can vary wildly http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg360ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
When things start getting priced in bitcoin, then i'll take it seriously.

considering a single bitcoin is around $600.00  you won't see a lot of bitcoin trades.

lite and dark coin are stable and better sized.

I read that bitcoin can be divided, and the smallest tradable amount was 0.00000001 bitcoin.  Currently worth 0.0006 cents.  Is that not the case?

The attraction of Bitcoin is that it is not hindered by international borders, can move freely across them without exchange leakage. The attraction to many would be to those who want to shift money from one currency to another without exchange fees, and avoid attention of the anti-money-laundering police, and speed.
An example of that was just a few months ago when bitcoin became the flavour of the month in beijing and hong-kong when concerted buying pushed the price up over $1100 question is - were they buying to hold or buying to move

how do you use bitcoin to shift money from one currency to another without exchange fees?
USD -> bitcoin -> NZD?  Which brokers will exchange bitcoin for real money for no fee? How do they make a living?

It doesn't quite work like that.

To do a fee less transaction is same as normal fiat currencies, ie by private treatise.  I agree to wire you 0.1 BTC, you agree to give me $62.10 USD. easy.

The cross currency idea is that if I buy an art print from the US, if the person accepts BTC, then I can wire them the 0.5 BTC.   No need to convert my NZD to USD, no bank margin, no exchange rate change in the middle cost me more or less.   If that person then decides to use the BTC to buy some in-game upgrades for an online game base in Japan or Europe, they can spend 0.5 BTC, no need to pay via Visa and again no currency steps.

To go from currency to currency the best way at the moment is to convert your USD to BTC through one of the online exchanges.  They're unregulated so very much caveat emptor.
Theoretically some countries have kiosks set up that will give you BTC disks or credit if you put in local currency but most of them have turned out to be scams.

Cashing out your BTC into NZD is  pretty much the reverse, use the online exchange to buy USD with your BTC, then use the USD to buy NZD.  and there will be fees each step of the way, although the BTC->USD will be the smallest fees.


Ok so it's kinda like if i am buying something from the states, and i have a USD account, and they accept USD, i can pay them and "exchange currency" without any exchange fees, well except the bit about "exchanging currency" which hasn't actually happened at all.  So i can not exchange currencies and not involve any exchange fees in my non-exchange.  Except when i need to convert my salary from NZD to bitcoin, so that i can pay in bitcoin, then how do i do that without exchange fees?

at the moment to achieve that would require private treaty

but i can do a private treaty with reall money too.  So how is bitcoin saving me fx fees?

Simple. Your problem is you are thinking honest and stationary. Better if you are crooked and mobile
Say you are in Hong Kong and you want to shift $2 million to Albuquerque, New Mexico, you buy $2 million BC in Hong Kong, put your account details on a Flash Drive, put the flash-drive in your pocket, jump on a plane, fly to New Mexico, pull your flash drive out of your pocket, and hey-presto, you have $2 million walking-around-money. Ready to go. Of course, if you aren't honest, you won't even need to get on a plane, just ring up your bag-man mate in Albuquerque, give him the account details, and hey-presto, he has $2 million walking-around-money, all within minutes.
Can you do that in one go with real money and stay under the radar?

Just as an idea of value

A bitcoin (BTC) is currently worth 619.84

I'm currently mining Groestlcoin (GRS), with the pool I'm in, I'm running a i7 4930k (ie fast current Intel system) with two GTX i780 cards (worth about $1100.00 a piece) I can generate/mine around 200-300 GRS per day.
A Groestlcoin (GRS) is worth about 0.00000180 BTC each (or 0.111 US cents) so on a good day I can mine about 37.5 cents US.  The main thing I do with the GRS is sell them for BTC, Litecoin (LTC), or Darkcoin (DRK).

After several months mining and trading, I have generated an equivalent to about $16. USD

As more people realise the logisitcs of alt coins, and that their main use is to trade for BTC, fewer will be released.  this is totally in line with normal unregulated currency markets, like the founding days of America and the US, and areas of Europe several Millenia ago.

To give a currency value, it must be fungible, wide, deep, and trust worthy.  The BTC, LTC and DRK seem to be holding up.  But some start well (like MAXCoin (MAX)) but find that after a good start they're only kept up by donations, spin and promises.  Without any "sink" there is no accelaration of money.


So you are consuming electricity and capital to mine a "special collection" of 1s and 0s...
You see this is of real value?  I certainly do not.
Lets look at the power consumption of your PC.
24 hours/365 days and at a high load. 
So a rough, dirty calc.
If we said that setup is using 200watts per hour (not un-realistic),  200 x24= 4.8kw.  At 25 cents NZ a kwh = $1.20NZD per day to run it.   Even if we said 100 watts you are still buring $60cents NZ to make 37.5cents US. 
With a conversion factor of 0.85,  you are spending 51cents US to make 37cents US, a loss of 14cents per day.
Now my gaming PCs are more like 200watts when running full tilt (I have measured them at about 1amp and 230volts) and are not as high spec'd as yours...so you might be 300watts actually.
So you are spending $15NZ to $45NZ PER month to make $16US over "several" months.
Then there is the capital costs, sounds like you have a $3000 PC...
Strikes me more like fiddle playing.
Play minecraft, much more fun and better use of that great gaming hardware.

772 Watts, with second screen off.  so around 1100Watts when everything is running hot.  Although the mining is done in the background so I tend to turn it off when I doing work intensive enough for second screen.

Yes, it heats half the house.

And it's solar powered..........  and I'm mining so I can find out the fundamental influencing factors in cryptocurrency (specifically) and currency development process (in general). Know thyself, know thine opponent...