Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But Satoshi also recognized that having more computing power on the network made the network stronger as long as the people with the power, like Laszlo, wanted to see Bitcoin succeed. Not sure if I entirely agree with/understand this. Even if they do want Bitcoin to succeed, how different is it from the current capitalist system if 40% of the bitcoins are owned by 1% of the population? Doesn't the (economic) power…
> Not sure if I entirely agree with/understand this. Even if they do want Bitcoin to succeed, how different is it from the current capitalist system if 40% of the bitcoins are owned by 1% of the population? 1%? According to a Bloomberg article[1] it's 1000 people owning 40% of all bitcoins. That's about 0.000014286% of the world population. I doubt any of the are involved in mining either now either, more likely just…
Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
111–120 of 127 posts
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Coming up with a way to have a decentralised currency where everyone involved gets a fair say without consuming too many resources is a super interesting problem. I think the obvious solution is to do useful work rather than throwing away work on crypto. Have miners solve real problems and give them credit for getting the right answer. This is what Ethereum is supposed to do. I don't think it's a great solution. It'…
>obvious solution is to do useful work rather than throwing away work on crypto Keep in mind that the parent stated multiple conditions in the problem and your "obvious solution" only addresses the "too many resources" component. Doing "useful work" is obviously better but still doesn't address the "fair say in decentralization". >I'm trying to design a system where something like 95% of the work goes to useful compu…
Bitcoin is entirely owned by people with ASICs. The barriers to entry are enormous. It's totally pointless for me to mine Bitcoin on my laptop, or even on my Beowulf cluster. But if mining involves normal computations like you'd want to run on a normal cloud, then a laptop is capable of doing useful work and the barrier to entry is low.
Making normal computers useful is a huge improvement over Bitcoin and is the motivvation behind currencies like Monero.
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
>obvious solution is to do useful work rather than throwing away work on crypto Keep in mind that the parent stated multiple conditions in the problem and your "obvious solution" only addresses the "too many resources" component. Doing "useful work" is obviously better but still doesn't address the "fair say in decentralization". >I'm trying to design a system where something like 95% of the work goes to useful compu…
I disagree. Making proof of work involve real applications rather than just cryptography means that machines will need to be general. It isn't possible to build an ASIC capable of running ordinary applications. Bitcoin is entirely owned by people with ASICs. The barriers to entry are enormous. It's totally pointless for me to mine Bitcoin on my laptop, or even on my Beowulf cluster. But if mining involves normal comp…
No, the "low barrier to entry" because of laptop use instead of ASIC is orthogonal to volume of computation/diskspace/specialization. That does not solve the "spend more money on computing resources" that inevitably leads to centralization. Making useful computations that's resistant to ASICs is an improvement but does not prevent economic centralization. Therefore, Monero doesn't solve it either.
You can see real-world evidence of this where SMTP email protocol and Git protocol do not run on specialized ASICs and yet, they still got economic consolidation.
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. Making proof of work involve real applications rather than just cryptography means that machines will need to be general. It isn't possible to build an ASIC capable of running ordinary applications. Bitcoin is entirely owned by people with ASICs. The barriers to entry are enormous. It's totally pointless for me to mine Bitcoin on my laptop, or even on my Beowulf cluster. But if mining involves normal comp…
> a laptop is capable of doing useful work and the barrier to entry is low. No, the "low barrier to entry" because of laptop use instead of ASIC is orthogonal to volume of computation/diskspace/specialization . That does not solve the "spend more money on computing resources" that inevitably leads to centralization. Making useful computations that's resistant to ASICs is an improvement but does not prevent economic c…
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#115One of the big selling points of Bitcoin is that it's meant to be decentralised but it doesn't look like this plays out. Proof of work seems to inevitably lead to all the power going to parties that can afford specialised hardware who are in countries with low electricity costs. Running a Bitcoin miner on commodity hardware now is pointless which seems to go against the spirit of Bitcoin when it started. Was this pre…
>Coming up with a way to have a decentralised currency where everyone involved gets a fair say without consuming too many resources is a super interesting problem. I think the obvious solution is to do useful work rather than throwing away work on crypto. Have miners solve real problems and give them credit for getting the right answer. This is what Ethereum is supposed to do. I don't think it's a great solution. It'…
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a laptop is capable of doing useful work and the barrier to entry is low. No, the "low barrier to entry" because of laptop use instead of ASIC is orthogonal to volume of computation/diskspace/specialization . That does not solve the "spend more money on computing resources" that inevitably leads to centralization. Making useful computations that's resistant to ASICs is an improvement but does not prevent economic c…
A system where anyone can rent out their CPU time will result in less centralization than we see with current cloud providers. A system where anyone can mine productively will result in less centralization than we see with current cryptocurrencies. Will it result in zero centralization? No, and I wouldn't expect it to. That's most likely impossible.
This is an aspirational wish but not reality at the moment. Nobody including BOINC or any other decentralized grid computing endeavor has proven that economically. For your cause & effect of "less centralization" to happen, homeowners cpu would have be cost competitive with cloud services. Selling "idle" time on home cpus isn't cost effective. Most realistic computation workloads also require large datasets (diskspace) in addition to cpu cycles. People don't pay only for the Amazon cpu clock cycles; it's also S3 data storage and network bandwidth.
Likewise, Filecoin's whitepaper for decentralized disk storage is also aspirational and economically unproven at this time.
>A system where anyone can mine productively will result in less centralization than we see with current cryptocurrencies.
Probably not. The "mine productively" in your solution has 2 components: (1) the useful computation and (2) the cryptocurrency computation.
For a thought experiment, let's assume you invent the 95% useful computation algorithm that you targeted. The 5% computation will still be have to be done on hardware where different entities can spend vastly different amounts of money. (Pay more for more powerful computers or pay less for watts of energy because China computer is near hydroelectric dam, etc.)
The 95% of useful computation (say brute force protein folding or DNA cancer analysis) can be an absolute gain for society. However, the 5% computation's "productive value" is _relative_ to all other participants mining that cryptocurrency. Since others can work through that 5% computation much more efficiently (both in pure hardware cycles and/or energy efficiency), the 5% crypto work on the homeowner's laptop loses value in relation to everybody else. Whatever crypto coins the laptop successfully mines, others have mined even more coins rendering the laptop coins to be worth less because of the relative time & energy it took on that modest laptop cpu.
The 95%/5% ratio that's resistant to ASICs does not stop the inevitable trends towards centralization into major entities holding disproportionate power and/or coins in the system. The 5% "non-useful" computation can still be optimized by people spending more money than others. Since spending is not decentralized, the resulting rewards from the 5% computation will also not be decentralized.
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Proof of stake is meant to consume less resources but then the power is then handed to people with the most money? I'm surprised nobody has caught on to the fact that the present fiat system is in essence a Proof-of-Stake one. > Coming up with a way to have a decentralised currency where everyone involved gets a fair say without consuming too many resources is a super interesting problem. Indeed. I almost wonder if…
> Indeed. I almost wonder if it can be proven that thermodynamics is in fact the only possible way to verifiably make something take considerable time and energy, i.e. actually cost in resources that we have no way of faking, especially time. This seems intuitively correct. So much so that I'm sure there's a paper that either confirms or denies that this is the case (perhaps in information theory). I also wonder how…
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#118The electricity consumption is a red flag, but perhaps it could be cheaper than the cost to build and maintain Guarda/Loomis trucks that carry physical currency, energy to melt metal to mint coins, and all the costs of building brick&mortar banks (even then, bankers provide auxiliary services like loans and advisement). We are all spending time talking about it as a collective effort to determine whether or not it sh…
> spend more time talking about money. Or making money on
> money. It just has nothing to do with what we actually DO
> with our time/resources.
It's funny you say this because back before I got into bitcoin I used to see the entire finance/banking industry this way. Now that I'm a bitcoin user/developer, I think this technology will make the finance industry diminish to the levels of where other industries are, because it's basically removing the middle men. It's actually doing the opposite of what you think is doing.
Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#119Re: Bitcoin mining and energy consumption
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That highly depends on the hashing algorithm used. For Bitcoin this is SHA256, which is very well-suited for ASIC implementation. The algorithm of Ethereum was deliberately designed to be ASIC-resistant, but GPU-friendly, therefore GPUs (which are kind of a commodity) are the hardware of choice for Ethereum mining. Is it possible to create ASIC resistant algorithms? Litecoin was meant to be resistant by using scryp…
> Is it possible to create ASIC resistant algorithms? Litecoin was meant to be resistant by using scrypt but there's ASICs out for that now I believe. Making the PoW require tons of memory to solve efficiently seems the best way to attain ASIC resistance. Monero's PoW requires only 8x more than scrypt's 128KB, but Ethereum requires over 1000x more than Monero's 2MB. None of these can be instantly verified though whic…