Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

hackingdistributed.com

31–40 of 156 posts

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#31
post #21

Sort of unrelated but, "According to my calculation, a single Bitcoin transaction uses roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day." http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable I find this interesting thinking about Bitcoin as a currency. The first cryptographic currency example that I had read, from a cryptography book, didn't involve active power. I'm really surprised that B…

Each bitcoin block takes 25 BTC (11000 USD at time of writing) worth of electricity to mine, because that is the maximum that the sum total of miners can afford to spend and still break even. Currently it's only possible to fit somewhere around 2000 transactions in each block, because there is a hard-coded limit on the size of a block (1 MiB). So each transaction costs 11000/2000=5.5 USD, which is indeed the approxim…

> So each transaction costs 11000/2000=5.5 USD

No, each transaction costs at most $5.50 USD. You haven't established any lower bound in your calculations. A better approach would be to calculate the average number of hashes required to mine a block and the power efficiency of the latest generation ASIC miners.

Also, for what it's worth, $5 is much cheaper than a Western Union or SWIFT wire transfer so even this upper bound doesn't mean Bitcoin is uneconomical compared to modern banking.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#33
post #21

Sort of unrelated but, "According to my calculation, a single Bitcoin transaction uses roughly enough electricity to power 1.57 American households for a day." http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-is-unsustainable I find this interesting thinking about Bitcoin as a currency. The first cryptographic currency example that I had read, from a cryptography book, didn't involve active power. I'm really surprised that B…

Those older examples suffered from the "double spend problem" where you could spend the digital currency twice (or more). Kind of like cheque fraud. The Proof of Work part of bitcoin (the part that consumes all that electricity) creates a consensus record so that if double spends are performed, only one of them will stick. Now double spends are a "feature" called "replace by fee." Preventing double spends is worth mi…

Yes, and maybe that was the main obstacle to implementation.

Reading some of the original literature, and glossing over the textbook, it seems like many of the issues involved with double spending and counterfeiters are _eventually_ resolved with someone going to jail, rather than being able to resolve the financial payments in order. A naïve solution - which might save some energy - what about using signed timestamps from an adequate authority?

Here is the article from 1991 for those interested in the original idea: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F3-540-46766-1_27

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#34

Is MML(miner money laundering) a viable concept? I thought that the transaction blocks were randomly distributed so it would be hard for a launderer to "target" a miner they trust. If someone has a bit more technical insight about whether this makes sense, or is viable I would be interested. I would also contend that even if it was trivially easy to do, it would probably make more sense to just route transactions to…

Presumably the high fee transaction could be withheld from the network until the block was mined.

I don't know if that is possible, but if it is it would ensure that a given miner was getting those fees.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#35
post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Each bitcoin block takes 25 BTC (11000 USD at time of writing) worth of electricity to mine, because that is the maximum that the sum total of miners can afford to spend and still break even. Currently it's only possible to fit somewhere around 2000 transactions in each block, because there is a hard-coded limit on the size of a block (1 MiB). So each transaction costs 11000/2000=5.5 USD, which is indeed the approxim…

> So each transaction costs 11000/2000=5.5 USD No, each transaction costs at most $5.50 USD. You haven't established any lower bound in your calculations. A better approach would be to calculate the average number of hashes required to mine a block and the power efficiency of the latest generation ASIC miners. Also, for what it's worth, $5 is much cheaper than a Western Union or SWIFT wire transfer so even this upper…

Except environmentally, you need to look at the energy footprint of Western Union compared to the network of Bitcoin miners, not the price of electricity or amount of coins awarded.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#36
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn that's huge. You'd assume that the software checks the dollar amount and asks for a confirmation, or better yet permission from a higher up, if it exceeds some value.

it does ask for confirmation. As OP wrote - it was an error, NOT a mistake.

I don't see what you're getting at. The trader switched price with quantity - it was a human mistake.

If the software had brought up a warning with something like "you are selling each share for less than 610000 +- 10000, please confirm", this could have been avoided.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#37
post #9
post #2

This reminds me of a similar error from 2005[1] where a trader mistook the "price" and "quantity" fields of the trading software. Instead of selling 1 share for 610,000 yen, 610,000 shares were sold for 1 yen. The mistake cost around $225 million. [1] http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/12/09/typing-error-causes-...

Damn that's huge. You'd assume that the software checks the dollar amount and asks for a confirmation, or better yet permission from a higher up, if it exceeds some value.

The problem with confirmation is it trains the human to always press "yes". You need a system that only activates if something really unusual or wrong.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#38
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn that's huge. You'd assume that the software checks the dollar amount and asks for a confirmation, or better yet permission from a higher up, if it exceeds some value.

it does ask for confirmation. As OP wrote - it was an error, NOT a mistake.

What a silly semantic argument to make.

It was an error and a mistake.

In fact, error is a synonym for mistake: https://www.google.com/search?q=mistake&oq=mistake&aqs=chrom...

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#39

"exogeneous enforcement mechanisms." -- Chortle, I really need one of those :-). I had not been aware of how the miners could launder bitcoin, that seems like a pretty big hole you can drive a lot of bitcoin through.

The award is recorded and they owe taxes on it. Which probably still leaves room for laundering. But it doesn't really obscure the flow of value all that much, unless they are all doing it and doing it for about the same price.

Re: Bitcoin's $137k Jackpot

#40
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn that's huge. You'd assume that the software checks the dollar amount and asks for a confirmation, or better yet permission from a higher up, if it exceeds some value.

it does ask for confirmation. As OP wrote - it was an error, NOT a mistake.

He actually said both :) But I don't understand the difference in this situation.
Post reply on HN