4 ms·
If it doesn't consume electricity at a high rate, it's not proof of work, ie there's nothing to "fix".
by mayank 14y ago
If it doesn't consume electricity at a high rate, it's not proof of work, ie there's nothing to "fix".
- wmf 14y agoSince it's memory-intensive, scrypt might be a more energy-efficient form of proof of work than SHA.
- Freaky 14y agoAlready being used: http://litecoin.org/ http://litecoin.org/ Only more efficient in that nobody's throwing lots of chunky GPUs at it.
- wmf 14y agoDoes a GPU use less power while mining Litecoin? It seems like the cores would be 99% idle.
- corysama 14y agoNope. The GPUs get plenty hot. The difference is that with Litecoin, your CPU gets hot too! I have not dug into the technical details, but at a glance it looks as if Litecoin motivated research that fairly successfully overcame the GPU-unfriendliness of Scrypt. If anyone here can confirm or deny this, I'd love to hear it.
- 1SaltwaterC 14y agoThe CPU doesn't get that hot. On a machine with an Athlon II 240e cgminer uses ~18% CPU vs the GPU that sits at 99% load. scrypt is indeed viable on GPUs, but it depends onto the available memory bandwidth which presumably lessens the impact of FPGA/ASIC if people start to push those as LTC mining solutions.
- codeulike 14y agowhich is what Litecoin tries to do, I think, but for different reasons. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Litecoin