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

21–30 of 118 posts

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#21

Post by jkhdigital »

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'

Settlement assurance is roughly a function of (a) the expected cost of mining a block and (b) the total value of bitcoins moved in that block. In general, the larger the ratio of a to b, the less time a merchant must wait to reach a certain level of assurance.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#22

Post by beervirus »

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.

That matters if you live in Texas. It doesn't matter if you live above the Arctic Circle.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#23

Post by CalmStorm »

season2episode3 wrote: post #6
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. 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.

The other common misconception is that the price of bitcoin is determined by the hashrate. It is actually the other way around, a higher price drives up the hashrate, because a higher price means more demand for bitcoin.

Some founders of altcoins apparently don't understand this and try to buy hashpower to artificially increase the hashrate, hoping to increase the price of their coins. If there is no demand for their coins, an ASIC farm is no different from a Rasberry Pi.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#24

Post by hn_acc_2 »

trixie_ wrote: post #18
brian_cloutier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The value of your long-held coins will be almost nothing if the network is vulnerable to double spend.

The potential losses are huge (especially for exchanges etc.) from double spend attacks, and the value of a cryptocurrency is very much dependent on users' confidence in its resistance to attacks.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#25

Post by gridlockd »

trixie_ wrote: post #18
brian_cloutier wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If you're just holding coins you're "safe" in the sense that you will get to keep your account balance.

However, if the network is unstable, then that balance will lose value in real terms or even become worthless.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#26

Post by trixie_ »

hn_acc_2 wrote: post #19
trixie_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There's a big difference between rewriting all history and rewriting a portion of it during an attack which costs 400k per hour.

Also people may misinterpret 'rewriting history' as the ability to to change coins sent from A -> B to A -> C. Which it is not.

Not saying an attack still isn't bad, but let's be clear what the extent of the damage could and could not be.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#27

Post by trixie_ »

hn_acc_2 wrote: post #24
trixie_ wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The value of your long-held coins will be almost nothing if the network is vulnerable to double spend. The potential losses are huge (especially for exchanges etc.) from double spend attacks, and the value of a cryptocurrency is very much dependent on users' confidence in its resistance to attacks.

Good. My long held worthless altcoins will remain worthless and mine regardless.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#28

Post by jkhdigital »

hn_acc_2 wrote: post #19
trixie_ wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Correction: pay $400/hr to gain a temporary majority in the block mining lottery. You can do a variety of things with that majority power, but “rewriting history” is a bit misleading. Yes, you can probably get the network to discard some previously accepted blocks, but this only allows you to invalidate your own transactions plus the transactions that depend on them.

Furthermore, any blocks that were mined under high hashpower still need the same hashpower to be re-mined. A one-time reduction in network hash power doesn’t make previously mined blocks easier to mine.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#29

Post by trixie_ »

TylerE wrote: post #11
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.

It also works with solar and wind.

Re: Bitcoin Mining’s Three Body Problem

#30

Post by trixie_ »

gridlockd wrote: post #20
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...

Not really. They are cemented into those blockchains. Unless you have a way to back write a blockchain.
Post reply on HN