4 ms·

We might be arguing about the meaning of words here but the work in PoW is it's output and the hashimoto algorithm in PoW discards all computed hashes that fail

We might be arguing about the meaning of words here but the work in PoW is it's output and the hashimoto algorithm in PoW discards all computed hashes that fail to meet the difficulty requirement. I suppose you know how consensus algorithms work, but if you don't I'd suggest you start by reading this https://medium.com/@jpa_of_snc/consensus-casper-and-cryptoeconomics-in-15-minutes-or-less-c7ca2427bf88 https://medium.com/@jpa_of_snc/consensus-casper-and-cryptoec.... If cryptoeconomics is interesting to you I can also recommend the best list of learning resources available, here: https://github.com/jpantunes/awesome-cryptoeconomics https://github.com/jpantunes/awesome-cryptoeconomics The concept of a useful PoW algorithm has been debated a number of times and the consensus view is what I wrote earlier: If there are incentives to mining other than the block reward, the security assumption provided by hashrate majority is lost and blocks producers cannot be trusted. I'm a blockchain developer for a couple of years now, and I often write about it as you can see by the links I shared above. (edit: typos)

keymone 8y ago
> arguing about the meaning of words here isn't that the most important thing? > work in PoW is it's output and the hashimoto algorithm in PoW discards all computed hashes that fail to meet the difficulty requirement you've used few specific words in your comments: "work" and "product". i agree that work in PoW is hashing and most of hashes are discarded, but product of PoW is the signature that satisfies the difficulty. if finding the signature didn't require going through lots of energy - it wouldn't have been proof of work. > If there are incentives to mining other than the block reward, the security assumption provided by hashrate majority is lost and blocks producers cannot be trusted. amazing, so you do understand this and yet you keep saying PoW is wasteful. if security is the product of PoW, then PoW is wasteful only if security is worthless.
- root_axis 8y ago
  Waste is the security mechanism. Since the hash results are wasted it is risky to mount an attack on the network; if the hash results were not wasted then the cost of mounting an attack would be mitigated by the value inherent in useful work produced by the algorithm. Your rebuttal actually supports this conclusion because "useful work" would become the "common denominator" cost built into securing the network thus bringing us right back to where we started (i.e. a situation where wasted work is the only useful kind for securing the network)
  - keymone 8y ago
    > Waste is the security mechanism not really, consumption of energy is. and even if we accepted this weak statement, how does it follow that PoW is therefore wasteful? waste isn't the product of PoW, valid blocks are.
    - root_axis 8y ago
      > consumption of energy is Yes. That's the "waste" part. The only product of spending the energy is a proof that the energy was spent. This is obviously wasteful because there is no relationship between the absolute energy spent and the utility of the network. The higher the difficulty the more energy wasted in order to maintain the status quo. Perhaps the most obvious sign of PoW's wasteful nature is the fact that the introduction of more efficient hardware into the network increases overall energy consumption because everyone else without cutting edge ASIC technology has to increase their energy output to compensate for the increase in hash rate.
      - keymone 8y ago
        > The only product of spending the energy is a proof that the energy was spent yes, and if that proof has value - then it's not a waste! > there is no relationship between the absolute energy spent and the utility of the network of course there is - security of the blockchain is proportional top energy spent mining it. > higher the difficulty the more energy wasted in order to maintain the status quo you got this backwards, difficulty goes higher because more energy is spent (or there is breakthrough in mining efficiency like cpu->gpu, gpu->fpga, fpga->asic, see next paragraph). and miners spend more energy because market tells them it values the security / utility / w/e of the bitcoin more. > introduction of more efficient hardware into the network increases overall energy consumption because everyone else without cutting edge ASIC technology has to increase their energy output to compensate for the increase in hash rate this makes no sense.. introduction of more efficient hardware increases the difficulty, not total energy spent. inefficient miner will remain inefficient and not-profitable no matter how much energy they will be spending.
- tinco 8y ago
  Just that something is effective doesn't mean it's efficient. For years the lightbulb was the most effective way of producing light, and we took for granted that it cost a lot of energy. But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. Bitcoin mining is wasteful, it literally produces waste, and there is no proof at all that it is an optimal way if achieving security, in fact I feel there are signs that point towards the contrary.
  - keymone 8y ago
    > But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. you're missing the fact that bitcoin difficulty adjusts. ultimately bitcoin mining is an activity that converts energy into blockchain security. market establishes the required level of security by assigning value to bitcoin. if you replace bitcoin algorithm to anything more "efficient" - it will simply mean that miners will churn through more iterations of hashing but amount of energy consumed will not change because it's dictated by the market. > Bitcoin mining is wasteful, it literally produces waste wrong. bitcoin mining produces blockchain security. waste (and more correctly - energy consumption) is just the mechanism.
    - tinco 8y ago
      I'm not missing any facts, and you're just ignoring my argument. What's your game?
      - keymone 8y ago
        Your argument is invalid exactly because you’re missing the fact that difficulty adjusts. Lightbulb produces light by consuming energy just like bitcoin miner produces hashes by consuming energy, but hashes aren’t the product we’re after, the valid block signature is. If difficulty was static we could be arguing that there is more efficient way to convert energy into valid blocks, but since difficulty adjusts - energy efficiency doesn’t matter, market says X amount of energy should be spent and so it will be spent no matter which hashing algorithm or how efficient the hardware is.

keymone 8y ago

> arguing about the meaning of words here isn't that the most important thing? > work in PoW is it's output and the hashimoto algorithm in PoW discards all computed hashes that fail to meet the difficulty requirement you've used few specific words in your comments: "work" and "product". i agree that work in PoW is hashing and most of hashes are discarded, but product of PoW is the signature that satisfies the difficulty. if finding the signature didn't require going through lots of energy - it wouldn't have been proof of work. > If there are incentives to mining other than the block reward, the security assumption provided by hashrate majority is lost and blocks producers cannot be trusted. amazing, so you do understand this and yet you keep saying PoW is wasteful. if security is the product of PoW, then PoW is wasteful only if security is worthless.

root_axis 8y ago
Waste is the security mechanism. Since the hash results are wasted it is risky to mount an attack on the network; if the hash results were not wasted then the cost of mounting an attack would be mitigated by the value inherent in useful work produced by the algorithm. Your rebuttal actually supports this conclusion because "useful work" would become the "common denominator" cost built into securing the network thus bringing us right back to where we started (i.e. a situation where wasted work is the only useful kind for securing the network)
- keymone 8y ago
  > Waste is the security mechanism not really, consumption of energy is. and even if we accepted this weak statement, how does it follow that PoW is therefore wasteful? waste isn't the product of PoW, valid blocks are.
  - root_axis 8y ago
    > consumption of energy is Yes. That's the "waste" part. The only product of spending the energy is a proof that the energy was spent. This is obviously wasteful because there is no relationship between the absolute energy spent and the utility of the network. The higher the difficulty the more energy wasted in order to maintain the status quo. Perhaps the most obvious sign of PoW's wasteful nature is the fact that the introduction of more efficient hardware into the network increases overall energy consumption because everyone else without cutting edge ASIC technology has to increase their energy output to compensate for the increase in hash rate.
    - keymone 8y ago
      > The only product of spending the energy is a proof that the energy was spent yes, and if that proof has value - then it's not a waste! > there is no relationship between the absolute energy spent and the utility of the network of course there is - security of the blockchain is proportional top energy spent mining it. > higher the difficulty the more energy wasted in order to maintain the status quo you got this backwards, difficulty goes higher because more energy is spent (or there is breakthrough in mining efficiency like cpu->gpu, gpu->fpga, fpga->asic, see next paragraph). and miners spend more energy because market tells them it values the security / utility / w/e of the bitcoin more. > introduction of more efficient hardware into the network increases overall energy consumption because everyone else without cutting edge ASIC technology has to increase their energy output to compensate for the increase in hash rate this makes no sense.. introduction of more efficient hardware increases the difficulty, not total energy spent. inefficient miner will remain inefficient and not-profitable no matter how much energy they will be spending.
tinco 8y ago
Just that something is effective doesn't mean it's efficient. For years the lightbulb was the most effective way of producing light, and we took for granted that it cost a lot of energy. But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. Bitcoin mining is wasteful, it literally produces waste, and there is no proof at all that it is an optimal way if achieving security, in fact I feel there are signs that point towards the contrary.
- keymone 8y ago
  > But you would be a fool if you claimed it wasn't wasteful just because the product (light) is so valuable. you're missing the fact that bitcoin difficulty adjusts. ultimately bitcoin mining is an activity that converts energy into blockchain security. market establishes the required level of security by assigning value to bitcoin. if you replace bitcoin algorithm to anything more "efficient" - it will simply mean that miners will churn through more iterations of hashing but amount of energy consumed will not change because it's dictated by the market. > Bitcoin mining is wasteful, it literally produces waste wrong. bitcoin mining produces blockchain security. waste (and more correctly - energy consumption) is just the mechanism.
  - tinco 8y ago
    I'm not missing any facts, and you're just ignoring my argument. What's your game?
    - keymone 8y ago
      Your argument is invalid exactly because you’re missing the fact that difficulty adjusts. Lightbulb produces light by consuming energy just like bitcoin miner produces hashes by consuming energy, but hashes aren’t the product we’re after, the valid block signature is. If difficulty was static we could be arguing that there is more efficient way to convert energy into valid blocks, but since difficulty adjusts - energy efficiency doesn’t matter, market says X amount of energy should be spent and so it will be spent no matter which hashing algorithm or how efficient the hardware is.