71–80 of 136 posts
This is essentially how bitcoin's proof of work algorithm works. They maintain the difficulty by adding 0s as computers get faster.
Isn't the reason more about limiting currency. Most of the crypto bros all hate the money printers. The fact that faster hashers will come about just adds some natural competition, but it's still about limiting money supplies.
This is essentially how bitcoin's proof of work algorithm works. They maintain the difficulty by adding 0s as computers get faster.
Isn't the reason more about limiting currency. Most of the crypto bros all hate the money printers. The fact that faster hashers will come about just adds some natural competition, but it's still about limiting money supplies.
00000000 000003da 5849ade5 e2112447 73478c46 5fcdc744 9e247df4 11e97b28 (#1 of leaderboard)
00000000 00000000 0002a2fa b0d010ce 270927e8 c9a698a3 4f5e3d6c 4dbcffd3 (latest mined block)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many hashes does your code go through per second? I just tried your HN username, and it took me these times: 19 seconds for 7 0s - nonce: 293576344 28 seconds for 8 0s - nonce: 436316829
Curious. I tried with a C program that ChatGPT spat out using 12 threads of my CPU and I get the 8 zeroes almost instantly. It calculates 1 billion in about 13 seconds, apparently. Start time: 1718742386 1718742387 SHA-256 hash of "NAHWheatCracker/486005487" is: 00000000cbed8e14c5e52b0c9bef443f017564aa6870da37f85ec92dd01b544d 1718742394 SHA-256 hash of "NAHWheatCracker/993155254" is: 0000000031fadb4805db8036ec66d872b…
Would it make sense to have some partial/incremental SHA256 implementation? E.g. one that gives the first character only (in ASCII representation). So that you could have a cheaper money miner to narrow down the search space? Is it even possible to have cheaper first character SHA256 algorithm?
If any such shortcut would be found, it would be considered a vulnerability, and the use of SHA256 for anything involving cryptography would be strongly discouraged.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't the reason more about limiting currency. Most of the crypto bros all hate the money printers. The fact that faster hashers will come about just adds some natural competition, but it's still about limiting money supplies.
That's incorrect. The money supply is fixed irrespective of the hash rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's incorrect. The money supply is fixed irrespective of the hash rate.
But it halves every so often.
It uses Peer-2-Peer in the browser and I haven't touched it in a while, but it looks like it still works. :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need some proof of work to prime the pump for proof of stake. Otherwise, you have no security because there's nothing at stake. Now that we have plenty of proof of work completed, we don't really need any more. You can bootstrap your new coin by burning Bitcoins as a provable value sink to get it started on the path to POS.
Did Ethereum end up moving to PoS? How did that work out?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it halves every so often.
Yes, the block reward halves every 210K block or roughly every ~4 years, but that's independent of the hash rate. Bitcoin adapts to the hash rate so that blocks are produced approximately every 10 minutes. Eventually the total supply of 21M BTC will be reached after which new bitcoin issuance will cease.
One's investment in mining equipment becomes half as profitable every so often.