4 ms·

Two fallacies: 1- "Mining Involves Computation-intensive Operations" => this is just a cheap brute force loop for guessing the nonce 2- "Bitcoin is a decentra

Two fallacies: 1- "Mining Involves Computation-intensive Operations" => this is just a cheap brute force loop for guessing the nonce 2- "Bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency" => Whales and Pools can control the price. 65% of Hashrate is concentrated in China.

kd913 5y ago
Sorry I don't understand how the first one is wrong? AFAIK it uses two iterations of SHA-256 to generate the hash. ie. A cryptographic hashing function designed to be computationally expensive/infeasible to reverse.
- danielmain 5y ago
  Hashing is the easy part and because it is not reversible miners waste energy looping and trying different nonces so you get a hash with the required amount of zeros. For my is just like a brute force password try-loop with a hashing in between. And that is the whole science XD
  - kd913 5y ago
    >Hashing is the easy part and because it is not reversible miners waste energy looping and trying different nonces so you get a hash with the required amount of zeros. The above is massively computationally expensive, hence why it's not a fallacy.
    - danielmain 5y ago
      sorry with all respect but Expensiveness is related with how many zeros have the target because you have too loop more. That is why you waste more energy (more expensive) now than years ago.
      - bitcoinmonger 5y ago
        It's not quite the number of zeros. The hash digest is interpreted as a 256 bit integer, and this has to be below another 256 but integer (the target) for the block to be mined. So you could get a block hash with "the correct number of zeros", but it would not be below the target. It's a fair simplification though.
      - kd913 5y ago
        I disagree, the computational expensive aspect is the fact that you are trying to find the inverse of the double hash. Hence you are forced to brute force. If the problem was adjusted where it wasn't using a double hash, and had some simple two-way function than it wouldn't be considered computationally expensive. That is irrespective of the length of the nonce. E.G if it was just a how much do I add to get a nonce of length x. The complexity here is caused by the double hash. The length of the nonce is just an even further scaling of an already difficult problem.
        danielmain 5y ago
        look we can discuss a lot about what is expensive. But my comment was about that just a brute force "guessing" loop algorithm in PoW is being sold like a "Computation-intensive Operation" what in my opinion is just a stupid way to waste energy and belongs in the same club of institutions like Bank Industry and Gold Mining that also waste energy. PoS is loot better.

kd913 5y ago

Sorry I don't understand how the first one is wrong? AFAIK it uses two iterations of SHA-256 to generate the hash. ie. A cryptographic hashing function designed to be computationally expensive/infeasible to reverse.

danielmain 5y ago
Hashing is the easy part and because it is not reversible miners waste energy looping and trying different nonces so you get a hash with the required amount of zeros. For my is just like a brute force password try-loop with a hashing in between. And that is the whole science XD
- kd913 5y ago
  >Hashing is the easy part and because it is not reversible miners waste energy looping and trying different nonces so you get a hash with the required amount of zeros. The above is massively computationally expensive, hence why it's not a fallacy.
  - danielmain 5y ago
    sorry with all respect but Expensiveness is related with how many zeros have the target because you have too loop more. That is why you waste more energy (more expensive) now than years ago.
    - bitcoinmonger 5y ago
      It's not quite the number of zeros. The hash digest is interpreted as a 256 bit integer, and this has to be below another 256 but integer (the target) for the block to be mined. So you could get a block hash with "the correct number of zeros", but it would not be below the target. It's a fair simplification though.
    - kd913 5y ago
      I disagree, the computational expensive aspect is the fact that you are trying to find the inverse of the double hash. Hence you are forced to brute force. If the problem was adjusted where it wasn't using a double hash, and had some simple two-way function than it wouldn't be considered computationally expensive. That is irrespective of the length of the nonce. E.G if it was just a how much do I add to get a nonce of length x. The complexity here is caused by the double hash. The length of the nonce is just an even further scaling of an already difficult problem.
      - danielmain 5y ago
        look we can discuss a lot about what is expensive. But my comment was about that just a brute force "guessing" loop algorithm in PoW is being sold like a "Computation-intensive Operation" what in my opinion is just a stupid way to waste energy and belongs in the same club of institutions like Bank Industry and Gold Mining that also waste energy. PoS is loot better.