Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

aniccaresearch.tech

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 118 posts

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#11

Post by TylerE »

trixie_ wrote: post #4

'Bitcoin is the product of hashpower. The industry wouldn’t exist without incentivizing miners to continuously invest in hardware and burning electricity to augment Bitcoin network’s settlement assurance' I think this is a common misconception. People don't need to continually invest in mining hardware to keep it going. The entire Bitcoin network could technically be run off a single Rasberry Pi. The network hash rat…

> At the end of the day your computer is no different from an expensive space heater

In most of the US, at least, you want AC and not heat at least 7-8 months out of the year, if not more.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#12

Post by Klinky »

trixie_ wrote: post #9
season2episode3 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At the end of the day your computer is no different from an expensive space heater. Might as well mine some crypto with it. Or, you know, you could just turn the computer off while you're not actively using it. It saves you money and does a small little good thing for the environment too.

That is why I made the analogy to a space heater - because mining would be a free side benefit of something you actively use to keep warm. The environmental impact is also negligible if the power you're using is coming from solar or wind.

An idle computer clocks down and sips power. Going full bore mining coins results in significant power usage increases. We're talking 10 watts vs 100s of watts.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#13

Post by trixie_ »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #7
trixie_ wrote: post #4

'Bitcoin is the product of hashpower. The industry wouldn’t exist without incentivizing miners to continuously invest in hardware and burning electricity to augment Bitcoin network’s settlement assurance' I think this is a common misconception. People don't need to continually invest in mining hardware to keep it going. The entire Bitcoin network could technically be run off a single Rasberry Pi. The network hash rat…

I haven't read the article, but I believe it will say something like, the continual investment is necessary in order for the transactions to be irreversible (settlement assurance). I'm sure there are some forgotten altcoins out there still chugging along, but it probably does not take much money to hire sufficient hash power to double-spend those alts, or even re-write their history. For as long as bitcoin miners fig…

Not saying this isn't a possibility, but you'd think in the last 5 years of thousands of altcoins this sort of thing must of happened at least once? I guess the interest has to be there to attack it? Though if the interest was there more people would be mining it. Something like that.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#14

Post by trixie_ »

Klinky wrote: post #12
trixie_ wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is why I made the analogy to a space heater - because mining would be a free side benefit of something you actively use to keep warm. The environmental impact is also negligible if the power you're using is coming from solar or wind.

An idle computer clocks down and sips power. Going full bore mining coins results in significant power usage increases. We're talking 10 watts vs 100s of watts.

Small space heaters run at 750 watts on the low setting.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#15

Post by brian_cloutier »

trixie_ wrote: post #13
brian_cloutier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the article, but I believe it will say something like, the continual investment is necessary in order for the transactions to be irreversible (settlement assurance). I'm sure there are some forgotten altcoins out there still chugging along, but it probably does not take much money to hire sufficient hash power to double-spend those alts, or even re-write their history. For as long as bitcoin miners fig…

Not saying this isn't a possibility, but you'd think in the last 5 years of thousands of altcoins this sort of thing must of happened at least once? I guess the interest has to be there to attack it? Though if the interest was there more people would be mining it. Something like that.

It... has happened. Multiple times.

Bitcoin Gold: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-gold-blockchain-hit-b...

Vertcoin: https://www.coindesk.com/the-vertcoin-cryptocurrency-just-go...

Ethereum Classic: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-classic-51-attack-th...

Google is happy to show you more.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#16

Post by trixie_ »

hn_acc_2 wrote: post #10
trixie_ wrote: post #4

'Bitcoin is the product of hashpower. The industry wouldn’t exist without incentivizing miners to continuously invest in hardware and burning electricity to augment Bitcoin network’s settlement assurance' I think this is a common misconception. People don't need to continually invest in mining hardware to keep it going. The entire Bitcoin network could technically be run off a single Rasberry Pi. The network hash rat…

I think you're missing the point. For Bitcoin to continue to act as a decentralized currency ledger (with "settlement assurance"), then the network hash rate must remain high. Nobody is arguing that the code couldn't run on one processor, only that cryptocurrencies conceptually depend on this high hash rate

It doesn't 'have' to be high. The hash rate could be 1/1000 of what it is today without any risk to 'settlement assurance'

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#17

Post by hn_acc_2 »

trixie_ wrote: post #13
brian_cloutier wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't read the article, but I believe it will say something like, the continual investment is necessary in order for the transactions to be irreversible (settlement assurance). I'm sure there are some forgotten altcoins out there still chugging along, but it probably does not take much money to hire sufficient hash power to double-spend those alts, or even re-write their history. For as long as bitcoin miners fig…

Not saying this isn't a possibility, but you'd think in the last 5 years of thousands of altcoins this sort of thing must of happened at least once? I guess the interest has to be there to attack it? Though if the interest was there more people would be mining it. Something like that.

Bitcoin Gold was hit by double spend multiple times, and that's just what I remember off the top of my head.

However there are obviously diminishing returns for such an attack. The alt coin value drops drastically when users find out about the attack and flee to more secure currencies.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#18

Post by trixie_ »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #15
trixie_ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying this isn't a possibility, but you'd think in the last 5 years of thousands of altcoins this sort of thing must of happened at least once? I guess the interest has to be there to attack it? Though if the interest was there more people would be mining it. Something like that.

It... has happened. Multiple times. Bitcoin Gold: https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-gold-blockchain-hit-b... Vertcoin: https://www.coindesk.com/the-vertcoin-cryptocurrency-just-go... Ethereum Classic: https://cointelegraph.com/news/ethereum-classic-51-attack-th... Google is happy to show you more.

Right, I guess I feel less at risk of being the victim of a double spend and more at risk with rewriting history. Are there any reports of that? Like coins I've held on the chain for some time being stolen?

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#19

Post by hn_acc_2 »

trixie_ wrote: post #16
hn_acc_2 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're missing the point. For Bitcoin to continue to act as a decentralized currency ledger (with "settlement assurance"), then the network hash rate must remain high. Nobody is arguing that the code couldn't run on one processor, only that cryptocurrencies conceptually depend on this high hash rate

It doesn't 'have' to be high. The hash rate could be 1/1000 of what it is today without any risk to 'settlement assurance'

https://www.crypto51.app/coins/BTC.html

You could pay $384k to hire miners to 51% attack BTC right now (that is, if NiceHash had the capacity). If you cut the hash rate that much the cost would be only $400 or so.

Does it sound like a secure trustless currency if anyone can pay $400 to gain 51% majority?

EDIT: 51% attack != rewrite blockchain

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#20

Post by gridlockd »

trixie_ wrote: post #4

'Bitcoin is the product of hashpower. The industry wouldn’t exist without incentivizing miners to continuously invest in hardware and burning electricity to augment Bitcoin network’s settlement assurance' I think this is a common misconception. People don't need to continually invest in mining hardware to keep it going. The entire Bitcoin network could technically be run off a single Rasberry Pi. The network hash rat…

In order to maintain network stability at current prices of Bitcoin, a massive amount of hashrate is required.

Those altcoins that have become worthless and are mined "just for fun" are only protected by the fact that they are worthless. Any attack would be a waste of resources. You could still attack them "just for fun" of course...

Post reply on HN