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

Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 151 posts

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#11

Post by bobthebuilders »

Analemma_ wrote: post #6
KETpXDDzR wrote: post #3

In Siberia they heat using btc mining: https://archive.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16619032/bitcoin-mining...

For about the zillionth time, space heating with Bitcoin mining is about one-quarter as energy-efficient as using an actual heat pump and so the “we can heat buildings with it!” argument does not actually excuse the massive energy use at all.

Bitcoins use an entropy increasing resistance hash function, which makes it terrible for heating and cooling. There's a reason why we should use FedCoin instead of Bitcoin or cash or gold.

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#12

Post by johnnyapol »

I was disappointed to not see any mentions of Gridcoin in the Proof of Stake section. It rewards people for their contributions to certain BOINC projects. There definitely is a range of "usefulness" to the projects supported. There are computations like distributed protein folding (Rosetta@Home) all the way to analysis of Minecraft phenomenon (Minecraft@Home). While the Minecraft makes for some very entertaining YouTube videos, the electricity used would probably be better spent on other projects. However, it is still a significant improvement over the computation for Bitcoin.

https://gridcoin.us/ https://gridcoin.us/guides/whitelist.htm

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#14

Post by ealexhudson »

ericjang wrote: post #5

Setting aside the advantages of Proof-of-Stake in terms of energy consumption, and setting aside the "green energy buyer of last resort" argument that the BTC maximalists often say, and setting aside the theoretical requirements for a valid PoW function, I do think it's tricky to argue which computing is inherently "valuable" or "not valuable". There is this intuition that guessing a bunch of random numbers doesn't c…

The PoW algorithm needs to effectively pick winners more or less at random, with a consistent number of winners (and gaps between), and the results be self-evidently correct. There are few problems which fit those criteria and are useful...

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#15

Post by elil17 »

formerly_proven wrote: post #9
KETpXDDzR wrote: post #3

In Siberia they heat using btc mining: https://archive.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16619032/bitcoin-mining...

That seems only marginally better than the not-uncommon mode of heating (gas) and temperature control (windows).

It’s actually worse than gas due to the inefficiencies inherent in power generation and transmission

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#17

Post by davesque »

rthomas6 wrote: post #4

Isn't that the entire point of Ethereum and some others?

Not necessarily. The current verification algorithm doesn't have any useful side effects other than verifying that some amount of computing happened. That will even be true for whatever computation happens as part of proof of stake when it gets rolled out. In other words, and in either case, the only real effect of the computation that happens as part of the verification algorithm is the verification itself.

Edit: There's no reason to downvote OP's post, folks. It's a good question that some people may not know the answer to.

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#18

Post by ClumsyPilot »

elil17 wrote: post #8
KETpXDDzR wrote: post #3

In Siberia they heat using btc mining: https://archive.curbed.com/2017/11/9/16619032/bitcoin-mining...

Unfortunately it’s still way, way less efficient than other heating systems like heat pumps This also doesn’t address the wasted materials and labor used to make the chips.

I dont think heat pumps work in sibearian winter of -40

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#19

Post by Alex3917 »

rafaelero wrote: post #13

If it's useful, it's less costly. If it's less costly, it is less secure.

This. Bitcoin only remains secure if the amount of electricity being wasted scales with the price. (Otherwise, the payout for double spending would exceed the cost.) For it to actually be a viable store of value at global levels, it would require burning orders of magnitude more electricity than is currently even produced in a year. It mainly appeals to the kind of people who self-identify as being good at math, but who are actually too dumb to do basic arithmetic.

Re: Why Can't Computing at the Heart of Bitcoin Be More Useful?

#20

Post by whatever1 »

ericjang wrote: post #5

Setting aside the advantages of Proof-of-Stake in terms of energy consumption, and setting aside the "green energy buyer of last resort" argument that the BTC maximalists often say, and setting aside the theoretical requirements for a valid PoW function, I do think it's tricky to argue which computing is inherently "valuable" or "not valuable". There is this intuition that guessing a bunch of random numbers doesn't c…

I prefer to spend resources on something of debatable value (look for aliens), rather than on something that it is indisputably of no value to humanity (proof of tedious work).
Post reply on HN