6 ms·

Bitcoin calculations right now is not really a waste of resource. It's used to "audit" the transactions to make sure no one can double spend any money.

by ricksta 13y ago

zanny 13y ago
The majority of work done on btc is useless though, because very few hashes end up validating into blocks. It would be nice if all that compute power was being used for some productive use, and you just did a consensus raffle rather than arbitrary hashing to pass out new coins.
- teraflop 13y ago
  I couldn't find any references to a "consensus raffle" algorithm, but it sounds interesting. Is there a reference you can share?
  - kzrdude 13y ago
    Ripple claims to use a consensus process https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/ https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/
- sneak 13y ago
  Proof-of-work is not useless if it prevents other, undesirable outcomes that would otherwise occur without it. Make no mistake, though - the large mining pools are the spacing guild of bitcoin; without them, there is no network. Unfortunately they (via their users) would not welcome such a switch after so much time and effort and money has already been expended to be able to increase sha256 speed to the point it is at now. Perhaps this is why Litecoin chose scrypt instead? Regardless, the proof-of-work we have in Bitcoin today is likely what we'll have in Bitcoin forever, like it or not.
  - baddox 13y ago
    Exactly right. Calling proof-of-work useless is like calling physical locks "a bunch of wasted metal just sitting there doing nothing."
    - Dylan16807 13y ago
      When a lock only stays shut as long as it's the biggest, and everyone is pouring thousands of tons of molten steel in just to keep the lock big? Hell yes it's a waste of resources. A single lock is much closer to encryption than it is to 'race the world' levels of proof of work.
      - s4m20 13y ago
        When compared to digging huge quarries into the earth, physically extracting gold ore, processing it and shaping into blocks then burying it back underground again (in vaults), it's not actually that wasteful.
        justincormack 13y ago
        That's wasteful too. Does not excuse bitcoin.
      - baddox 13y ago
        If there was no other way to secure the advantages of this hypothetical big lock, and those advantages were as significant as Bitcoin's, then it wouldn't be a waste of resources.
        tveita 13y ago
        Keep in mind that the entire Bitcoin network could be replaced with one trusted party with the computing power of an average smart phone. The network is currently paid 150 Bitcoins every hour to be that party, and in an efficient market, almost all of that would be spent on mining, i.e. wasted. The security of Bitcoin against double-spending is literally based on wasting so much money that it is unattractive for an attacker to spend a matching amount of money on a double-spend attack. The network must spend this money all the time, though - it can't know in advance when it is being attacked. An attacker with enough resources can also force the network to either match their spending, or be rendered useless. Bitcoin is an inherently wasteful system, and it actively resists scaling. There are alternatives, the most proven of which is a centralized ledger run by a trusted third party. Even if there were no viable alternatives at all, I would still have doubts about the sustainability of the current system. The cost of running the network is just too large compared to the amount of real economic activity.
sliverstorm 13y ago
Hardly. Bitcoin ran just fine on CPUs. The only reason nobody uses CPUs to mine any more is because everybody else switched to GPUs, which resulted in a difficulty adjustment. In other words, competition for bitcoins upped the required compute power, not anything inherent to producing bitcoins themselves.
- tibbon 13y ago
  Two things 1) There are now more transactions to check. 2) The transactions can be verified by more people now, resulting in a more secure network.
  - sliverstorm 13y ago
    Do 500W GPUs play any part in this? No. The bitcoin client is a standalone app that can run on any machine. Mining (generating hashes) does not, to my knowledge, actually operate the network. Hell, if bitcoin needs 1000 petaflops just to operate the network when it is still a fringe currency, how exactly is it supposed to scale to mainstream use?
    - brazzy 13y ago
      The computing effort required by mining is almost completely decoupled from the actual number of transactions. It's designed to scale up with the available computing power, that's why it has grown.
    - baddox 13y ago
      > Mining (generating hashes) does not, to my knowledge, actually operate the network. You're incorrect. The proof-of-work requirement is integral to the Bitcoin network, because it makes fraud unprofitable. The amount of computation required to create a block chain longer than the honest one should cost more than the potential benefits of doing so. That said, as far as I know, any proof-of-work algorithm could be used as long as a large portion of clients adopted it, so it should be possible to use work that is useful in itself.

Bitcoin calculations right now is not really a waste of resource. It's used to "audit" the transactions to make sure no one can double spend any money.

by ricksta 13y ago

Bitcoin calculations right now is not really a waste of resource. It's used to "audit" the transactions to make sure no one can double spend any money.

zanny 13y ago

The majority of work done on btc is useless though, because very few hashes end up validating into blocks. It would be nice if all that compute power was being used for some productive use, and you just did a consensus raffle rather than arbitrary hashing to pass out new coins.

teraflop 13y ago
I couldn't find any references to a "consensus raffle" algorithm, but it sounds interesting. Is there a reference you can share?
- kzrdude 13y ago
  Ripple claims to use a consensus process https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/ https://ripple.com/how-ripple-works/
sneak 13y ago
Proof-of-work is not useless if it prevents other, undesirable outcomes that would otherwise occur without it. Make no mistake, though - the large mining pools are the spacing guild of bitcoin; without them, there is no network. Unfortunately they (via their users) would not welcome such a switch after so much time and effort and money has already been expended to be able to increase sha256 speed to the point it is at now. Perhaps this is why Litecoin chose scrypt instead? Regardless, the proof-of-work we have in Bitcoin today is likely what we'll have in Bitcoin forever, like it or not.
- baddox 13y ago
  Exactly right. Calling proof-of-work useless is like calling physical locks "a bunch of wasted metal just sitting there doing nothing."
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    When a lock only stays shut as long as it's the biggest, and everyone is pouring thousands of tons of molten steel in just to keep the lock big? Hell yes it's a waste of resources. A single lock is much closer to encryption than it is to 'race the world' levels of proof of work.
    - s4m20 13y ago
      When compared to digging huge quarries into the earth, physically extracting gold ore, processing it and shaping into blocks then burying it back underground again (in vaults), it's not actually that wasteful.
      - justincormack 13y ago
        That's wasteful too. Does not excuse bitcoin.
    - baddox 13y ago
      If there was no other way to secure the advantages of this hypothetical big lock, and those advantages were as significant as Bitcoin's, then it wouldn't be a waste of resources.
      - tveita 13y ago
        Keep in mind that the entire Bitcoin network could be replaced with one trusted party with the computing power of an average smart phone. The network is currently paid 150 Bitcoins every hour to be that party, and in an efficient market, almost all of that would be spent on mining, i.e. wasted. The security of Bitcoin against double-spending is literally based on wasting so much money that it is unattractive for an attacker to spend a matching amount of money on a double-spend attack. The network must spend this money all the time, though - it can't know in advance when it is being attacked. An attacker with enough resources can also force the network to either match their spending, or be rendered useless. Bitcoin is an inherently wasteful system, and it actively resists scaling. There are alternatives, the most proven of which is a centralized ledger run by a trusted third party. Even if there were no viable alternatives at all, I would still have doubts about the sustainability of the current system. The cost of running the network is just too large compared to the amount of real economic activity.

sliverstorm 13y ago

Hardly. Bitcoin ran just fine on CPUs. The only reason nobody uses CPUs to mine any more is because everybody else switched to GPUs, which resulted in a difficulty adjustment. In other words, competition for bitcoins upped the required compute power, not anything inherent to producing bitcoins themselves.

tibbon 13y ago
Two things 1) There are now more transactions to check. 2) The transactions can be verified by more people now, resulting in a more secure network.
- sliverstorm 13y ago
  Do 500W GPUs play any part in this? No. The bitcoin client is a standalone app that can run on any machine. Mining (generating hashes) does not, to my knowledge, actually operate the network. Hell, if bitcoin needs 1000 petaflops just to operate the network when it is still a fringe currency, how exactly is it supposed to scale to mainstream use?
  - brazzy 13y ago
    The computing effort required by mining is almost completely decoupled from the actual number of transactions. It's designed to scale up with the available computing power, that's why it has grown.
  - baddox 13y ago
    > Mining (generating hashes) does not, to my knowledge, actually operate the network. You're incorrect. The proof-of-work requirement is integral to the Bitcoin network, because it makes fraud unprofitable. The amount of computation required to create a block chain longer than the honest one should cost more than the potential benefits of doing so. That said, as far as I know, any proof-of-work algorithm could be used as long as a large portion of clients adopted it, so it should be possible to use work that is useful in itself.