4 ms·

OK. Of what utility to mankind is SHA256(SHA256(candidate)) after it is discarded by the miner? What do we get from that?

keymone 9y ago
isn't that obvious? it is of utility of verifying that candidate can't secure the ledger. this really comes down to question whether you think the distributed, writable by anybody ledger is useful to humanity. personally i think it absolutely is. do you?
- jsmthrowaway 9y ago
  Not quite. It most certainly doesn’t come down to that, and it’s a reduction of what I’m saying. I’m drawing a distinction between the specific way bitcoin verifies its ledger versus cryptocurrency and distributed ledgers themselves. I took pains to enunciate that repeatedly, so let me try to illustrate with an example: Say I have one watt of power. I apply it to a computer for however long and it spends that energy folding a protein, simulating a gravitational system, or modeling a hurricane. I apply it to another computer and it spends that watt for however long computing a double SHA256 and throwing away the result. If, at the end of both calculations, I have worked toward proof of work on a secure ledger, which energy was better spent for humanity? That’s the difference: while the secure blockchain is a noble goal, what the computer is doing during that time is something we badly need to rethink. “The double-hash of these bytes is <foo>” isn’t even useful if we collected it. It’s meaningless computing. Yes, we ascribe meaning when blocks are made, but it’s a very irresponsible technical decision to waste energy in order to prove that work was done. This would be fine if it were a low amount of energy, but it isn’t. We are talking gigawatts that are potentially being spent on this, which is part of the point I was trying to make. Electricity isn’t free, and it’s important to consider our planet. Bitcoin essentially puts computers in a busy loop, and it’s a very hamfisted means of achieving its goal. We have already seen alternative concepts, including this one, that illustrate there is potentially another way to achieve what we want without throwing a small star’s worth of energy at the computing infrastructure behind it. Coming after people and assuming they’re criticizing cryptocurrency as a concept whenever a specific piece is questioned is tough to discuss against. I think cryptocurrency can do better, and there are undoubtedly better ways to come up with to secure a distributed ledger. I’m alarmed that the adoption of bitcoin has exploded our utilization of resources and that people feel that worry about this is an indictment of the whole concept; this polarization makes it difficult for all of us to improve. So, no, it isn’t obvious what value I should see out of a computer spinning itself through SHA2 for no benefit aside from securing a ledger. In any other domain, we’d consider such a design ridiculous. There has to be another way, one where that same (intensive) calculation can benefit humanity for the power that we are throwing at it, and we still end up with a secure blockchain. I’m not smart enough to invent it. I hope we can support the people who are, and perhaps admit that bitcoin’s proof of work scheme is a mistake in the larger landscape. I worry that given how deep we are into ASIC development, arguments against what I’m saying are only going to get louder as time goes on. We are probably long past the point of no return with bitcoin already.
  - colordrops 9y ago
    There is no other way to secure a distributed ledger at the moment other than using large amounts of power. That leaves two choices: 1. Admit that you think that crypto currency is not worth the energy cost. Even if you believe that, it's just wasted breath on your part because they are absolutely not going to go away. 2. Propose another solution. No one else on earth has found a better solution than proof of work. Do you have something better?
    - parasubvert 9y ago
      It’s not wasted breath to say it’s not worth it. The point is that distributed ledgers will not be the future of currency and banking - they’re not worth it. They’ll surely exist as a niche technology or religious artifact for the libertarian set.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
  - keymone 9y ago
    > which energy was better spent for humanity? Wrong question. It implies energy can only be used exclusively for single purpose. The right question is given X watts, what is the ideal distribution for Y purposes and the answer is that we dont know but we tend to value some things more than others and that will be reflected in the distribution > no benefit aside from securing the ledger This is the crucial point that many who raise the same objection dont get: proof of work has to be futile by design. In fact it is misnomer and the correct name should be Proof of energy spent, as the energy is the ultimate resource we’re paying for security of the ledger. If we accept that ledger security must be tied to solving some more “important” problem, and there indeed was a non futile problem space, some f(candidate) that yields two results: (candidate-ok?, problem-solved?), the incentive to search that space drops to zero because it is no longer tied to solving the “important” problem. And suddenly the ledger is useless. If you know how to resolve this conflict - publish a paper and you will be the next Satoshi.

keymone 9y ago

isn't that obvious? it is of utility of verifying that candidate can't secure the ledger. this really comes down to question whether you think the distributed, writable by anybody ledger is useful to humanity. personally i think it absolutely is. do you?

jsmthrowaway 9y ago
Not quite. It most certainly doesn’t come down to that, and it’s a reduction of what I’m saying. I’m drawing a distinction between the specific way bitcoin verifies its ledger versus cryptocurrency and distributed ledgers themselves. I took pains to enunciate that repeatedly, so let me try to illustrate with an example: Say I have one watt of power. I apply it to a computer for however long and it spends that energy folding a protein, simulating a gravitational system, or modeling a hurricane. I apply it to another computer and it spends that watt for however long computing a double SHA256 and throwing away the result. If, at the end of both calculations, I have worked toward proof of work on a secure ledger, which energy was better spent for humanity? That’s the difference: while the secure blockchain is a noble goal, what the computer is doing during that time is something we badly need to rethink. “The double-hash of these bytes is <foo>” isn’t even useful if we collected it. It’s meaningless computing. Yes, we ascribe meaning when blocks are made, but it’s a very irresponsible technical decision to waste energy in order to prove that work was done. This would be fine if it were a low amount of energy, but it isn’t. We are talking gigawatts that are potentially being spent on this, which is part of the point I was trying to make. Electricity isn’t free, and it’s important to consider our planet. Bitcoin essentially puts computers in a busy loop, and it’s a very hamfisted means of achieving its goal. We have already seen alternative concepts, including this one, that illustrate there is potentially another way to achieve what we want without throwing a small star’s worth of energy at the computing infrastructure behind it. Coming after people and assuming they’re criticizing cryptocurrency as a concept whenever a specific piece is questioned is tough to discuss against. I think cryptocurrency can do better, and there are undoubtedly better ways to come up with to secure a distributed ledger. I’m alarmed that the adoption of bitcoin has exploded our utilization of resources and that people feel that worry about this is an indictment of the whole concept; this polarization makes it difficult for all of us to improve. So, no, it isn’t obvious what value I should see out of a computer spinning itself through SHA2 for no benefit aside from securing a ledger. In any other domain, we’d consider such a design ridiculous. There has to be another way, one where that same (intensive) calculation can benefit humanity for the power that we are throwing at it, and we still end up with a secure blockchain. I’m not smart enough to invent it. I hope we can support the people who are, and perhaps admit that bitcoin’s proof of work scheme is a mistake in the larger landscape. I worry that given how deep we are into ASIC development, arguments against what I’m saying are only going to get louder as time goes on. We are probably long past the point of no return with bitcoin already.
- colordrops 9y ago
  There is no other way to secure a distributed ledger at the moment other than using large amounts of power. That leaves two choices: 1. Admit that you think that crypto currency is not worth the energy cost. Even if you believe that, it's just wasted breath on your part because they are absolutely not going to go away. 2. Propose another solution. No one else on earth has found a better solution than proof of work. Do you have something better?
  - parasubvert 9y ago
    It’s not wasted breath to say it’s not worth it. The point is that distributed ledgers will not be the future of currency and banking - they’re not worth it. They’ll surely exist as a niche technology or religious artifact for the libertarian set.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- keymone 9y ago
  > which energy was better spent for humanity? Wrong question. It implies energy can only be used exclusively for single purpose. The right question is given X watts, what is the ideal distribution for Y purposes and the answer is that we dont know but we tend to value some things more than others and that will be reflected in the distribution > no benefit aside from securing the ledger This is the crucial point that many who raise the same objection dont get: proof of work has to be futile by design. In fact it is misnomer and the correct name should be Proof of energy spent, as the energy is the ultimate resource we’re paying for security of the ledger. If we accept that ledger security must be tied to solving some more “important” problem, and there indeed was a non futile problem space, some f(candidate) that yields two results: (candidate-ok?, problem-solved?), the incentive to search that space drops to zero because it is no longer tied to solving the “important” problem. And suddenly the ledger is useless. If you know how to resolve this conflict - publish a paper and you will be the next Satoshi.