261–270 of 762 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what they said. They said POS can't distribute coins, which is not accurate. ADA and XTZ did pre-mine their initial distribution, and now they distribute coins through stake rewards.
That's not distribution. That's just letting every owner maintain their share of the pie by staking.
While I hate the GPU shortage, I dont think this is the right way to go. Artificially limiting what you can and cannot do on your hardware is a bad precedent.
It's also a precedent nvidia (and AMD) set well over a decade ago by limiting several features to their quadro line. 5-10 years ago it was 10-12bit color. Today it's SR-IOV. There was also the gsync/freesync debacle not so long ago. This is the first time the ends have even remotely justified the means.
Sounds like it's time to crack some NVIDIA drivers. I already do it for the video encoding limitations, why not this too? Miners are willing to go to some really hacky extremes, reflashing firmwares, custom fan mods, extreme overclock configurations, etc to maximize hashrates and certainly won't care if they have to jump through some hoops to patch a specific version of the Linux driver or enable unsigned drivers on…
Is it even in theory possible to produce silicon that does not perform well on crypto operations while allows 3D to run at full speed? Or do they simply rely on the same underlying operations?
Gamers hate miners, they're driving the price up, make hardware impossible to get ect ... It's a really problematic situation. Almost 6 month after launching new graphic cards from AMD / NVIDIA good luck gettting an RTX 30xx or 6800. On a side note all those virtual currency are just plain wrong on the environment side, it does not make any sense in 2021 to have a currency that need heavy computation thus increasing…
[flagged]
I would normally be appalled by such an action, but the supply issues for RTX 30x0 cards are beyond ridiculous. Mining trashes the environment and, for the majority of crypto assets/volumes, does not provide genuinely valuable economic activity besides speculation (I say that as someone who has put thousands of dollars into crypto in the past). Why should people who want to try some ML/DL at home (maybe they even nee…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Artificially limiting what you can and cannot do on your hardware is a bad precedent. Everything does it - from Intel chips being binned by performance, Windows versions and # of CPUs, and pretty much any big software products. Another way to see it is: it costs X to develop a line, and a vendor can charge everyone the same, no matter how they use it, or they can design and partition the line so users with different…
Binning chips for yield is different from artificially crippling chips. There's nothing wrong with taking an 8-core CPU with a defect in one core and selling it as a 6-core part, or underclocking it until all 8 cores are stable and selling it as a slower part. The odious part happens when fab defect rates drop and yield improves, so basically all the dies can function as 8-core chips. When that happens, Intel et al.…
I see that as a market success. People with lighter needs can purchase a neutered chip at a lower price. While people with greater needs can purchase an unlocked chip for a premium.
An alternative is to only have one chip, which is priced higher than the neutered version. Because of lost sales, fewer people overall buy the chip, so the price per unit goes up. This is a net loss to the consumer.
Another idea is to build two chips for each market. This increases design and production costs. And is a net loss for the consumer.
Or they could always just avoid making the more powerful chip at all, and stick with the volume seller.
This is a really common strategy in consumer products because it makes so much market sense. It sounds unfair when you think of it as, "paying for a product which you can't access the full potential". But it sounds pretty nice when you frame it as, "getting a discount for not using a feature."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The practical utility of crypto is such a joke when compared to the intended use cases that all of the speculators fawn over. The idea that crypto is a "store of value" seems like meager coping with the fact that transaction rates in a distributed system necessarily must suck compared to what Visa, et. al. are doing with IBM mainframes and racks of x86 hardware contained in the same datacenter (i.e. 1~2ms latency dom…
The long term road map for Ethereum 2 is 100k transactions per second. This is a theoretical maximum and it will likely take years to get there. This defies your assertion that scaling cannot ever be achieved with current crypto approaches.
I would normally be appalled by such an action, but the supply issues for RTX 30x0 cards are beyond ridiculous. Mining trashes the environment and, for the majority of crypto assets/volumes, does not provide genuinely valuable economic activity besides speculation (I say that as someone who has put thousands of dollars into crypto in the past). Why should people who want to try some ML/DL at home (maybe they even nee…
Whatever original hopeful goals the creator(s) of Bitcoin had with this idea, and decentralised currency...if there was any victory at all it is a pyrrhic one when you look at the externalities.
If you can call a digital gold rush a victory, anyway. The physical one in the US was pretty bad for a lot of people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'd rather they have scaled up the demand. There are car factories shutting down due to lack of chips. The silicon for the systems that I work on has its lead times increased from the customary How do you suggest they scale up demand short of building their own fabs? (Which I hope you aren't suggesting...)
Building more fabs is the only sustainable solution. Demand is higher than supply, and miners will just use older drivers or figure out a workaround pretty quickly, unless the new mining cards are substantially cheaper yet just as fast as the "gaming" GPUs.
But in the context of "I'd rather they have scaled up the demand", where "they' is Nvidia (or almost any other fabless semiconductor company), it's not a solution because it's impossible for them to build fabs or to foresee and plan for the supply chain disruption that was caused by COVID-19.