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

How Monero’s proof of work works

blog.alcazarsec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 244 posts

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#191

Post by protocolture »

j4cobgarby wrote: post #5

I never quite understand this stuff, maybe someone can help. Are cryptocurrencies supposed to be a potential replacement for real life cash? This was my understanding of the motivation behind Bitcoin, at least. If so, why does it make sense that people can "generate" cash by proving some amount of work done? This of course cannot be done with normal cash. Is the main functionality of these cryptocurrencies supposed t…

In a distributed system you still need all the features of the centralised system.

For a currency, that means you still need issuance, and you still need security.

Miners, glossing over a lot of theory, provide security in exchange for receiving issuance. They can be seen like the decentral bank of the crypto world.

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#192

Post by Nevermark »

rschneid wrote: post #161
dgacmu wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I was not quite saying my fun was the reason, but that the failure to create something GPU/ASIC resilient was the more general underlying cause. But be careful about "proven" in that last sentence - the absence of a solution isn't exactly proof, it's more of a proof that _either_ it is possible to create an ASIC-resistant algo _or_ it has not been worthwhile to ASIC-ify it given the economics of mining XMR and…

It's a proof that something is possible to show one example. In this case the claim was ASIC-resistant PoW is possible, and the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX. Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

You are twisting words beyon any coherent meaning.

> It's a proof that something is possible to show one example.

Agreed.

> the proof has been the historical behavior of miners after years of RandomX.

> Nobody said it would be eternally or entirely resistant to optimizations...

These are contradictory statements. If historical behavior was a proof, then it would be eternally and entirely resistant.

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#194

Post by yieldcrv »

dgacmu wrote: post #3

If folks are interested in the old Monero PoW function (and, uh, the reason they changed it), I wrote up a thing about it a long time ago: https://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/08/minting-money-with-mone... The history of people trying to design GPU or ASIC-resistant proof-of-work functions is long and mostly unsuccessful. I haven't looked into RandomX; it's possible they've succeeded here (or possible that with the alt-…

Monero has used Random X for 7 years

Why even mention that era? Your fascinating by that time was shorter than its post Random X lifecycle

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#195

Post by nohell »

gkbrk wrote: post #163
kerkeslager wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...such as?

I've seen https://kyc.rip but haven't tried it so far.

That's just using Trocador with referral fees.

You could just use Trocador directly and skip the "hackerish" aesthetic and save 2% on fees.

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#196

Post by akoboldfrying »

nerdsniper wrote: post #136
ProllyInfamous wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I partially heat my home by running the default Monero client on old Xeons (heat ejects near my desktoes). As I only mine when it's cold outside (otherwise using resistive heating), there is no actual net electricity cost. IMHO it's not "worth it" for an individual to buy equipment specifically to mine crypto... but if you already have an old machine AND you heat without a heatpump, it's a free hobby/heater. ---- To…

A heat pump would arguably be more efficient for society (can provide 4x heat for 1x energy), but if you make enough money on the mined monero I guess it might be rational. Would be curious if the marginal savings from a heat pump would allow you to buy more monero than you mine with this energy.

Wearing a woollen jersey would be even more efficient for society.

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#197

Post by nmz »

tt24 wrote: post #185
nmz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legalities aside, You can use compute how you want, that doesn't stop anybody from accurately measuring its usefulness. Given that this is an objective measurement. I can have a computer on an endless loop without any idling, consuming as much CPU time as it can, I do not know any other classification of this action than wastefulness. crypto mining is useful of course, the end goal of mining is to get crypto, of cour…

How is it an objective measurement? What is useful and what is not useful? Is Minecraft useful? What does useful mean?

Via comparison of the solutions, we measure objectives and actions performed and the time it requires to do them.

Objectively, Minecraft is a game, an objective of many games is to waste time, therefore this cannot be used as a measurement, but enjoyment is. as a game it fulfills its role. wastefulness could be classified in comparison to other solutions/clones, like minetest. If minetest fulfills exactly the same goals with less action as minecraft, then minecraft is in comparison wasteful.

Another measurement is mining solutions can we achieve the action of mining with less compute? can we not mine at all? does not mining achieve the same goal? if it does, then mining is objectively wasteful.

The objective of crypto is replacing fiat currency, it does not do this, therefore it is wasteful. Of course, this is only true until it does replace it, which is why we must compare, would this cryptocoin scale to the entire world? does it require more work for it to do so? if so then it is wasteful.

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#198

Post by kyleee »

tardedmeme wrote: post #112
nunobrito wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And sending donations to causes the government doesn't endorse. A good example was the truck manifestation in Canada a few years ago, they went after all the donors for what was a legitimate protest. Anyone using bank transfers or any crypto that wasn't Monero was persecuted. Those who used Monero had their privacy assured and zero issues.

I'm not sure that I'd cite being able to donate to terrorists as a legitimate use case. I mean, at the protocol level, donating to a terrorist is the same as donating to anyone else, so a system that lets you donate to anyone will necessarily let you donate to terrorists, but it wouldn't be the example I'd bring up in polite conversation.

Remember that nelson Mandela was considered a terrorist too

Re: How Monero’s proof of work works

#200

Post by donaldjbiden »

dennis_jeeves2 wrote: post #169
ballofrubber1 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d argue that this is more of a feature than a bug. The assumption behind the “deflation is bad” argument is that spending itself is the goal. But spending is not automatically good. Productive spending and productive investment are good. Wasteful consumption, speculation, and forced risk-taking are not. If money holds its value, people become more selective. They still buy food, housing, tools, entertainment, exper…

> But spending is not automatically good. Productive spending and productive investment are good. Wasteful consumption, speculation, and forced risk-taking are not. That is indeed a great distinction that you have pointed out.

I think it's good to remember neither saving nor spending is the goal. The goal is productive real activity. Money is a means to get there.
Post reply on HN