5 ms·

Bitcoin mining is wasteful compared to some of the alternatives, solving useful hard problems as proof of work (Primecoin) or using a proof of stake system to r

Bitcoin mining is wasteful compared to some of the alternatives, solving useful hard problems as proof of work (Primecoin) or using a proof of stake system to remove the need for relying so heavily on energy wasting mining (Peercoin).

lukifer 13y ago
From what I understand as a layman, it is overly generous to call the prime number sequences found by PrimeCoin "useful". I do think that a hybrid proof-of-stake system is probably superior and more efficient. But bear in mind that capitalism involves lots of waste, from high-frequency trading, to plastic doodads that wind up in the trash, to the vast majority of advertising and marketing. I'm absolutely in favor of a Star Trek / Buckminster Fuller neo-communism, if it can be achieved. In the meantime, we have to fail forward and innovate as best we can, and I think proof-of-work cryptocoins are far less wasteful in toto than the current global banking system. (What do you think it took in terms of energy and waste products to manufacture and distribute the dollars in your wallet?) Note also that intentional wastefulness shows up frequently in nature: costly signals are honest signals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signalling_and_Fisherian_diploid_dynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signal...
- gnaritas 13y ago
  > I think proof-of-work cryptocoins are far less wasteful in toto than the current global banking system. Maybe, maybe not, I don't think anyone's crunched enough numbers to make a reasonable measure of that yet. > (What do you think it took in terms of energy and waste products to manufacture and distribute the dollars in your wallet?) I doubt either of us know. I'm a Bitcoin supporter, but one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. If that's true at all, then Bitcoin is wasteful.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    > one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. I sincerely hope that a truly useful proof-of-work can be discovered. It would be a very big deal. The problem is, the work has to be reliably verifiable, and easier to verify than just doing the work over again, which is why hashes are a good fit.
    - 3rd3 13y ago
      What about Primecoin?
      - lukifer 13y ago
        See the discussion above. :) Prime number sequences are unlikely to be "useful" in the same sense as protein folding.
        gnaritas 13y ago
        Another possibility.
        lukifer 13y ago
        Protein folding unfortunately isn't a good candidate, because verifying the work takes exactly as much effort as doing the work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system
    - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
      Unless I am mistaken, you can verify arbitrary computations[0]. [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2003 http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2003
      - lukifer 13y ago
        The abstract says that "a practical general-purpose protocol for verifiable computation may be significantly closer to reality than previously realized". This should be interesting though, thanks for sharing!
  - KVFinn 13y ago
    >I'm a Bitcoin supporter, but one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. If that's true at all, then Bitcoin is wasteful. There are curecoin and gridcoin, which base a large portion of mining profits off Boinc credits. Kinda defeats the point of being decentralized though...
tlrobinson 13y ago
Is the Primecoin proof of work actually useful?
- gnaritas 13y ago
  I'd imagine it'll have uses in future encryption potentially, but at the very least it has scientific value in progressing what we know and can prove about prime numbers. That's more useful than countless SHA-256 hashes. Securing the network and progressing science is greater than just securing the network; especially since doing so uses lots of real resources in terms of energy.
  - jnbiche 13y ago
    How does it progress what we know about prime numbers?
    - gnaritas 13y ago
      From https://github.com/primecoin/primecoin/wiki/FAQ https://github.com/primecoin/primecoin/wiki/FAQ "Primecoin network searches for special prime number chains known as Cunningham chains and bi-twin chains. The distribution of these prime chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven. The distribution of primes has been one of the most important discoveries in arithmetic, and the study of prime chains traces its lineage to the work of Riemann and prime number theorem, with connections to the deeper nature of the seemingly random pattern of prime distribution. Prime distribution is not just an abstract interest of mathematicians. Riemann's study revealed connections between Riemann zeta function and prime distribution, whereas later on Riemann zeta function has been shown to be highly relevant in other scientific disciplines such as physics, thus the study of prime distribution is an important part of the foundation of modern sciences."
Renaud 13y ago
It's only wasteful if you consider that bitcoin is of no value. If you only look at bitcoin as a money transfer system, requiring computationally difficult proofs is at the heart of what makes the system trustworthy. Do we think the same when we talk about all the vast amounts of energy and money spent trying to secure bank transactions? It's only a waste of money and energy if you consider that these things have no value. Even if we only consider the protection of physical money and valuables: how much energy is spent in making these vaults? How much money does it cost to protect them? It's only worth it if you consider that what they protect is more valuable than the cost of protecting them. In the end, whatever is in that vault is just made of bits of metal and dead tree pulp.
zby 13y ago
The problem with Peercoin is that it is centralized by the reliance on checkpoints. That makes it completely missing the point - after all you can have a centralized crypto-coin without mining at all. I am still waiting for a true decentralized proof of stake coin.
- gnaritas 13y ago
  That's a protection against attacks until it grows big enough, so no it's not missing the point, the checkpoints are to be removed once it's safe to do so. Yes that makes it risky for now, but it will be decentralized completely soon.

lukifer 13y ago

From what I understand as a layman, it is overly generous to call the prime number sequences found by PrimeCoin "useful". I do think that a hybrid proof-of-stake system is probably superior and more efficient. But bear in mind that capitalism involves lots of waste, from high-frequency trading, to plastic doodads that wind up in the trash, to the vast majority of advertising and marketing. I'm absolutely in favor of a Star Trek / Buckminster Fuller neo-communism, if it can be achieved. In the meantime, we have to fail forward and innovate as best we can, and I think proof-of-work cryptocoins are far less wasteful in toto than the current global banking system. (What do you think it took in terms of energy and waste products to manufacture and distribute the dollars in your wallet?) Note also that intentional wastefulness shows up frequently in nature: costly signals are honest signals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signalling_and_Fisherian_diploid_dynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signal...

gnaritas 13y ago
> I think proof-of-work cryptocoins are far less wasteful in toto than the current global banking system. Maybe, maybe not, I don't think anyone's crunched enough numbers to make a reasonable measure of that yet. > (What do you think it took in terms of energy and waste products to manufacture and distribute the dollars in your wallet?) I doubt either of us know. I'm a Bitcoin supporter, but one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. If that's true at all, then Bitcoin is wasteful.
- lukifer 13y ago
  > one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. I sincerely hope that a truly useful proof-of-work can be discovered. It would be a very big deal. The problem is, the work has to be reliably verifiable, and easier to verify than just doing the work over again, which is why hashes are a good fit.
  - 3rd3 13y ago
    What about Primecoin?
    - lukifer 13y ago
      See the discussion above. :) Prime number sequences are unlikely to be "useful" in the same sense as protein folding.
      - gnaritas 13y ago
        Another possibility.
        lukifer 13y ago
        Protein folding unfortunately isn't a good candidate, because verifying the work takes exactly as much effort as doing the work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-work_system
  - reginaldjcooper 13y ago
    Unless I am mistaken, you can verify arbitrary computations[0]. [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2003 http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.2003
    - lukifer 13y ago
      The abstract says that "a practical general-purpose protocol for verifiable computation may be significantly closer to reality than previously realized". This should be interesting though, thanks for sharing!
- KVFinn 13y ago
  >I'm a Bitcoin supporter, but one has to think there are useful hard problems to solve rather than just banging out SHA-256 hashes over and over. If that's true at all, then Bitcoin is wasteful. There are curecoin and gridcoin, which base a large portion of mining profits off Boinc credits. Kinda defeats the point of being decentralized though...

tlrobinson 13y ago

Is the Primecoin proof of work actually useful?

gnaritas 13y ago
I'd imagine it'll have uses in future encryption potentially, but at the very least it has scientific value in progressing what we know and can prove about prime numbers. That's more useful than countless SHA-256 hashes. Securing the network and progressing science is greater than just securing the network; especially since doing so uses lots of real resources in terms of energy.
- jnbiche 13y ago
  How does it progress what we know about prime numbers?
  - gnaritas 13y ago
    From https://github.com/primecoin/primecoin/wiki/FAQ https://github.com/primecoin/primecoin/wiki/FAQ "Primecoin network searches for special prime number chains known as Cunningham chains and bi-twin chains. The distribution of these prime chains are not well-understood currently as even for its simplest case twin primes their infinite existence is not proven. The distribution of primes has been one of the most important discoveries in arithmetic, and the study of prime chains traces its lineage to the work of Riemann and prime number theorem, with connections to the deeper nature of the seemingly random pattern of prime distribution. Prime distribution is not just an abstract interest of mathematicians. Riemann's study revealed connections between Riemann zeta function and prime distribution, whereas later on Riemann zeta function has been shown to be highly relevant in other scientific disciplines such as physics, thus the study of prime distribution is an important part of the foundation of modern sciences."

Renaud 13y ago

It's only wasteful if you consider that bitcoin is of no value. If you only look at bitcoin as a money transfer system, requiring computationally difficult proofs is at the heart of what makes the system trustworthy. Do we think the same when we talk about all the vast amounts of energy and money spent trying to secure bank transactions? It's only a waste of money and energy if you consider that these things have no value. Even if we only consider the protection of physical money and valuables: how much energy is spent in making these vaults? How much money does it cost to protect them? It's only worth it if you consider that what they protect is more valuable than the cost of protecting them. In the end, whatever is in that vault is just made of bits of metal and dead tree pulp.

zby 13y ago

The problem with Peercoin is that it is centralized by the reliance on checkpoints. That makes it completely missing the point - after all you can have a centralized crypto-coin without mining at all. I am still waiting for a true decentralized proof of stake coin.

gnaritas 13y ago
That's a protection against attacks until it grows big enough, so no it's not missing the point, the checkpoints are to be removed once it's safe to do so. Yes that makes it risky for now, but it will be decentralized completely soon.