Live data from Hacker News

Bitcoin Is Time

dergigi.com

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#331

That was an excellent read! Every time I read about Bitcoin here, I see the "Energy" arguments. Bitcoin was designed to solve a specific problem and it solves that. Even Satoshi himself would not have foreseen the energy requirements for PoW. If we had argued about energy requirements in late 60s we would have never reached Moon or built the LHC. Technological advancements will always need energy. We should be discus…

IMO, the energy requirement aspect is tragic because it scales. Even as we unlock greater and greater sources of power, Bitcoin will scale to take more and more energy. It's almost like a parasite for electricity.

Right now it's not so bad, but the trajectory is a real problem.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#332
post #8

Time is money. Bitcoin is wasted time. And wasted money. And wasted energy.

Everything on the planet uses energy. Why are people so obsessed with Bitcoin's energy usage in particular?

The core operating principle of Bitcoin is to waste energy. That's what "mining" is: wasting electricity to find useless numbers, such that the hash of each block starts with a certain number of zeros (a useless task).

This silly task (called HashCash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash ) was chosen not because those numbers are somehow important to the algorithm or network, but rather as a way to slow down the rate of block creation: forcing people to waste energy on finding these numbers, in order to have their blocks accepted by the network.

It is important for bitcoin's security that the block chain can only grow slowly, since conflicts (like double-spending) are resolved by choosing the longest chain; if someone makes their own block chain that's longer than the main bitcoin chain, the network will switch to that and any payments on the previous chain will be forgotten. Using HashCash to slow down block creation makes this harder to pull off.

The difficulty of the HashCash task (the required number of zeros for the next block's hash) changes depending on how long it took to find the last block, such that it always takes about 10 minutes to find a block, regardless of how much energy is spent on this task, or any technology improvements (e.g. CPU vs GPU vs ASIC). In other words, wasting more energy on mining bitcoin, or making more efficient bitcoin mining hardware, will not find blocks any faster; the mining task will become harder to compensate, so it still takes about 10 minutes per block.

Bitcoin allows transactions to contain a 'fee' with a blank recipient, and each block can also contain a small payment 'from nowhere' as a reward/incentive. Miners create blocks which send these fees and rewards to themselves, then try to solve the HashCash task to make the block valid. Whoever solves it first sends their block to the network, it gets accepted as the longest chain, and hence that miner has received the fees and reward.

Miners can't make more money by solving HashCash faster, since it always takes about 10 minutes for a block's HashCash to be solved, at which point everyone starts looking for a following block (since that will form the longest chain), which may be even harder to find. Instead, wasting more energy on mining makes it more likely that a miner will be the one who finds the next block; since, on average, someone performing X% of all mining will find X% of all new blocks (and hence receive X% of the fees and rewards).

This creates a competition between miners, to try and waste more energy on HashCash than each other. This race-to-the-bottom breaks even when the energy wasted finding a block costs the same as all of the fees and rewards in that block; i.e. when all of those wasted megawatts are being spent for literally nothing (net).

There are other ways to slow down the creation of blocks, or to resolve conflicts which don't incentivise long chains; other cryptocurrencies are experimenting with such things.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#333

Bitcoin network is constantly readjusting mining complexity, so that every new block will be mined in approximately 10 minutes. Then, they substitute the notion of time with the sequence of Bitcoin blocks. Yeah, well done! Bitcoin proponents are becoming more and more insane.

EDIT: To be honest, knowledge of the hash of a block can be used as a proof that something has happened AFTER a particular event (similarly to a picture of a hostage with the newspaper).

But you can't prove that something has happened BEFORE a particular event using Bitcoin hashes.

Also, this "feature" is unrelated to Bitcoin being a cryptocurrency. You can have cryptocurrencies without "global time" (e.g. NANO).

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#334
post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently decided to think deeply about Bitcoin and I think my initial skepticism about Bitcoin was wrong. Most of the criticisms of Bitcoin are centered around the fact that Bitcoin has a very low throughput. However this is not necessarily a problem. And here is one hypothetical example of how we can overcome this issue: When countries owe each other money they used to transfer gold back and forth or trust someone…

Why are you so excited about a really inefficient clearing house? We already have those.

Ask Venezuelans and Iranians.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#335

Bitcoin network is constantly readjusting mining complexity, so that every new block will be mined in approximately 10 minutes. Then, they substitute the notion of time with the sequence of Bitcoin blocks. Yeah, well done! Bitcoin proponents are becoming more and more insane.

Or is it the detractors that are becoming more and more insane? Perhaps it's both. There are so many detractors who seem to have the need to go "hurmph!" every time someone mentions Bitcoin, and often times they have knowledge gaps that destroy their credibility. In every Bitcoin related thread here on HN, there's tons of detractors who make ridiculous claims around the utility and mechanics of Bitcoin that it's hard to take them seriously. Why are they so invested in shouting down Bitcoin in the first place? If someone doesn't like Bitcoin, they can simply not use it. There's nothing wrong with healthy criticism, but it's there's an air of emotional insecurity in these people that makes me wonder whether they're former Bitcoin supporters who got burned after 2017 because of their misconceptions.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#336
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The lightning network is incredibly buggy and won't actually solve the problems it's promising. it's actually worse than that - lightning only works in the context of centralized banking. It presumes there is some other entity with whom you can hold a channel open, who you do roughly equivalent amounts of deposits and withdrawals from. If that criterion is not met, then you have to keep closing channels and re-open…

This is not true! RTFM

Can you offer one contradiction to it? That would be more helpful than just saying it’s not true.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#337
post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

Stop shilling. And to have the galls to say something like Nano has the ability to take on Bitcoin just indicates that you very new to this market - and thus want to make a quick buck by shilling your random shitcoin. The thing which Bitcoin has, and that few others can match, is acceptability from a large swatch of investors and predictable security/emission schedule. And, just fyi, Nano is not made of users. Go to…

The Nano reddit is split up because of this reason:

You have NanoTrade where these things are discussed, and you have NanoCurrency where Nano itself and adoption is discussed.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#338
post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

Stop shilling. And to have the galls to say something like Nano has the ability to take on Bitcoin just indicates that you very new to this market - and thus want to make a quick buck by shilling your random shitcoin. The thing which Bitcoin has, and that few others can match, is acceptability from a large swatch of investors and predictable security/emission schedule. And, just fyi, Nano is not made of users. Go to…

> most of us are in here for the money and don't give two hoots of the technology

Given that the technology determines the timeframe over which you can make money, this seems like a weird position to take.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#339
post #243
post #210

I'm ready to be downvoted to oblivion, especially by all the Bitcoin purists, but I hope my message sparks at least some curiosity. Bitcoin is getting "weaker" every year for several reasons: - emerging centralization due to economies of scale. If this trend continues the mining power will be so consolidated that a 51% attack will be likely. The Nakamoto coefficient is already at 4, and tending towards 3. - energy us…

> The lightning network is incredibly buggy and won't actually solve the problems it's promising. it's actually worse than that - lightning only works in the context of centralized banking. It presumes there is some other entity with whom you can hold a channel open, who you do roughly equivalent amounts of deposits and withdrawals from. If that criterion is not met, then you have to keep closing channels and re-open…

> It presumes there is some other entity with whom you can hold a channel open, who you do roughly equivalent amounts of deposits and withdrawals from.

I don't get how you go from there to "centralised banking". Contrary to a bank, you do not need to trust this entity with your money. Also it is not centralised, there can be many such entity and they connect together.

Re: Bitcoin Is Time

#340

That was an excellent read! Every time I read about Bitcoin here, I see the "Energy" arguments. Bitcoin was designed to solve a specific problem and it solves that. Even Satoshi himself would not have foreseen the energy requirements for PoW. If we had argued about energy requirements in late 60s we would have never reached Moon or built the LHC. Technological advancements will always need energy. We should be discus…

> If we had argued about energy requirements in late 60s we would have never reached Moon or built the LHC.

This is not even close to true.

The energy requirements for the Saturn program and for the LHC were calculated and understood in precise detail, and did not depend on any assumption that there would be new energy sources in the future.

Post reply on HN