Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?
Topic: [ANN][BURST] Burst | Efficient HDD Mining | New 1.2.3 Fork block 92000 - page 349. (Read 2170648 times)
March 18, 2015, 02:57:06 AM
Another example of a fastblock being eaten by the same person in a couple seconds...
Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?
Am I the only one that thinks this is weird?
March 18, 2015, 12:09:19 AM
Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
OK, did it - and quoted some of the following posts here, if you don't mind...
Appreciate it Hubus!
13 X is nothing to write home about. 13000x would be! 130x would be somewhat interesting. it's not groundbreaking technology. this comparison isn't that useful, POC has other aspects over POW that are more interesting.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
Yeah but Bitcoin ASICs are approaching the same limit that CPUs and GPUs are at and won't keep quickly getting more energy efficient or do more calculations per dollar spent on them.
Meanwhile memristors and holographic storage is coming out soon.. and lots of different potential technologies coming in the future. Granted ferroelectric transistors also have some potential for CPUs and some other technologies there too.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
Went through and edited the numbers, better?
I've got some problems with the numbers, and a bigger problem with something thats been totally overlooked.
The assumption that the "average" PC uses 300W has been raised earlier, so I'll skip that - but you have "That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W." That indicates a 16W load per drive 24*7. Looking at the specs of the drives I'm using - WD Reds - the spec sheet says 2.5 to 3.3W Idle, 3.3 - 4.5 active. Lets be generous and say that on average given the bursty nature of Burst - 4W average 24 * 7, so the assumed rate is 4x high. So actual PoW/PoC is more like 52 than 13.
The bigger issue I have is that you've only looked at cost of running the two competitors - but what about the income difference ?
Assuming those 50 HDD's are 3TB drives, we have (based on current difficulty and price)
Burst:
Income: 150TB = 28,613 Burst/Day = $12.44 /day
Cost: 0.2KW/H * 24 H * $0.12 KWH = $0.58 /day
Profit/loss:$11.86 / day
Bitcoin: Assumes 1.6TH from the Terraminer IV (Based on current difficulty / price - and BTC difficulty is increasing faster than Burst)
Income: $3.11 / TH * 8 TH = $24.88 / day
Cost: 5 * 2.1 KW/h * 24H * 0.12 KWH = $30.24
Profit/Loss: ($5.36) / day
So in PoW, with this particular miner, your ROI is .... Never. You're digging yourself deeper into a hole as soon as you turn it on. With PoC you ROI is "someday" depending on the capacity of the drives, but as long as its at least 150GB/drive - you make a profit and an ROI.
H.
Excellent points!
March 17, 2015, 10:59:27 PM
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
Went through and edited the numbers, better?
I've got some problems with the numbers, and a bigger problem with something thats been totally overlooked.
The assumption that the "average" PC uses 300W has been raised earlier, so I'll skip that - but you have "That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W." That indicates a 16W load per drive 24*7. Looking at the specs of the drives I'm using - WD Reds - the spec sheet says 2.5 to 3.3W Idle, 3.3 - 4.5 active. Lets be generous and say that on average given the bursty nature of Burst - 4W average 24 * 7, so the assumed rate is 4x high. So actual PoW/PoC is more like 52 than 13.
The bigger issue I have is that you've only looked at cost of running the two competitors - but what about the income difference ?
Assuming those 50 HDD's are 3TB drives, we have (based on current difficulty and price)
Burst:
Income: 150TB = 28,613 Burst/Day = $12.44 /day
Cost: 0.2KW/H * 24 H * $0.12 KWH = $0.58 /day
Profit/loss:$11.86 / day
Bitcoin: Assumes 1.6TH from the Terraminer IV (Based on current difficulty / price - and BTC difficulty is increasing faster than Burst)
Income: $3.11 / TH * 8 TH = $24.88 / day
Cost: 5 * 2.1 KW/h * 24H * 0.12 KWH = $30.24
Profit/Loss: ($5.36) / day
So in PoW, with this particular miner, your ROI is .... Never. You're digging yourself deeper into a hole as soon as you turn it on. With PoC you ROI is "someday" depending on the capacity of the drives, but as long as its at least 150GB/drive - you make a profit and an ROI.
H.
March 17, 2015, 07:05:57 PM
Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
OK, did it - and quoted some of the following posts here, if you don't mind...
March 17, 2015, 03:49:16 PM
A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size
It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"
What PC uses 300 watts of power?
An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU). POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block. During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts. The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away. The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.
This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.
It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.
what if you can store hundreds tb of plots without any energy usage while idleing?
can someone familar with the numbers add this to the calculation please?
one of the companies officially working on this is akonia holographics (http://akoniaholographics.com/).
they got a in 2005 filed patent granted mid last year.
https://www.google.de/patents/US8786923
i think they required the time for the market to become ready for what they have.
if at some point you can use such devices in production energy costs for storage are almost zeroed out and you discuss about asic based miners cause your cpus cant handle the load.
March 17, 2015, 01:32:01 PM
Awesome comparison... Wondering when will POC2 release?
PoC2 is partially CPU/ASIC mineable (inverse hash lookup is inherently TMTO) up to certain ratio (depending on power efficiency, over 50% for ASIC). The power usage is considerably more compared to PoC1, but also scales better, solves the NaS problem through the PoW element etc.
March 17, 2015, 01:29:48 PM
Not bad: Last 24 hour trade volume 416 287.39793760 BURST(179.06 USD)
https://block.burstcoin.info/as.php?as=14668748687827404894 (site by irontiga)
https://block.burstcoin.info/as.php?as=14668748687827404894 (site by irontiga)
March 17, 2015, 01:12:53 PM
A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size
It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"
What PC uses 300 watts of power?
An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU). POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block. During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts. The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away. The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.
This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.
It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.
March 17, 2015, 12:57:35 PM
A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size
It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
" and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts"
What PC uses 300 watts of power?
An I7 running 100% will only pull roughly 90watts (CPU). POC only has the CPU at 100% for roughly 1-2min MAX per block. During block resting time the PC only pulls 50-75 watts. The only time a PC will ever pull 300+watts is if it has GPU's crunching away. The entire comparison is based on a PC pulling 300watts, which is a nice number to talk about, but not even close to reality.
This number can be lowered even further by using CPU's that pull less power and are suited for a POC rig.
It's a nice comparison and full of detail, but the 300W assumption I think hurts the data.
March 17, 2015, 12:14:42 PM
A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size
It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
13x means that POW will get better w.r.t. energy usage as ASIC chips get smaller. POW won't because there's no control over HDD. SSD will give it another leap since they use less energy over spinners. but again, when ssd completely replaced spinners POW chips will be much smaller and more energy efficient anyway.
POC vs POW in terms of energy usage is not a "winning" comparison.
March 17, 2015, 10:13:29 AM
A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Assume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 - http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.
The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-size
It's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
Awesome comparison... Wondering when will POC2 release?
March 17, 2015, 09:22:47 AM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10783246
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
Thank you, I really like those comparisons
! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10799602
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
Thank you, I really like those comparisons
! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10799602Thanks hubus!!
Would you mind removing this post? Based on bad numbers and I went back and rewrote it(version you have posted above it)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-is-the-most-environmentally-friendly-energy-efficient-altcoin-982957
March 17, 2015, 07:53:08 AM
i think info addr should be a ip adress or a dns name?!
Seems to work now, thank you!
Hello, sorry, did not have time to test further. Now I have different error messages:
connect function failed with error: 10060
March 17, 2015, 06:44:23 AM
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10783246
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
Thank you, I really like those comparisons ! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10799602
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Stake
Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of Work
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
Thank you, I really like those comparisons
! I quoted it into my thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10799602
March 17, 2015, 06:24:07 AM
Update and News: www.burstcoin.de
>> New Feature: German Soloming Guide for Linux is now available.
------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. Only! 64k to go in the Crowfund (now at 85%). Please do some donations!!!!
>> New Feature: German Soloming Guide for Linux is now available.
------
Help me to keep up the page and enhance the information for the german community. Only! 64k to go in the Crowfund (now at 85%). Please do some donations!!!!
March 17, 2015, 04:25:40 AM
It's more about the fact that he has the same exact deadline as the last block AND it happened within the first 5s of the new block.
I investigated a bit, because I saw the same thing with block 77885 and 77886. It turns out that Blagos miner is showing some false information, because the blockchain does not show that those blocks was mined by the same address. I don't where the bug is, it could be that the info server has not updated, so the miner is reading the old information. I have set the info server to be the same address as the wallet, so the miner will read the information from the same place - that should take care of this. March 17, 2015, 04:17:22 AM
you can only announce a nonce for a account id. all wallets then verify the received nonce by calculating the deadline for it.
the only way to "play" with the blockchain is to ddos the miner wallets by massive nonce submission to the blockchain.
the result of this may be that many mining wallets simply freeze up and the tb mining with it wont get fresh blocks.
i am not aware how the automatic ddos protection works and how fast bad ips would get blacklisted.
this attack vector may have happened before (sorry i cannot proof) because after not finding a block for several hours i directly found blocks as usual after a wallet restart and fresh peers. i have'nt traced this down to its origin but the watched effect looked suspicious.
lately the diff went too high to see this effect directly anymore so i stoped a further investigation.
to be able to premine blocks you require to know the blockheight and the resulting gensig of the winner.
simply said the gensig is based on who found the block combined with the height. therefore there is no way to optimize stored plots for certain gensigs because they alter even for the same miner for a different blockheight.
the only statistically based optimization i could imagine would be to only store nonces which do not contain all scoops.
statistically if you would store nonces containing only 12 scoops your plots may be used for 1 block a day (statistically).
for this one block a day each tb plotted this way equals 360tb. the tricky part starts when you think of load distribution. but maybe this attempt may be used for vps approaches or third generation pools.
the only way to "play" with the blockchain is to ddos the miner wallets by massive nonce submission to the blockchain.
the result of this may be that many mining wallets simply freeze up and the tb mining with it wont get fresh blocks.
i am not aware how the automatic ddos protection works and how fast bad ips would get blacklisted.
this attack vector may have happened before (sorry i cannot proof) because after not finding a block for several hours i directly found blocks as usual after a wallet restart and fresh peers. i have'nt traced this down to its origin but the watched effect looked suspicious.
lately the diff went too high to see this effect directly anymore so i stoped a further investigation.
to be able to premine blocks you require to know the blockheight and the resulting gensig of the winner.
simply said the gensig is based on who found the block combined with the height. therefore there is no way to optimize stored plots for certain gensigs because they alter even for the same miner for a different blockheight.
the only statistically based optimization i could imagine would be to only store nonces which do not contain all scoops.
statistically if you would store nonces containing only 12 scoops your plots may be used for 1 block a day (statistically).
for this one block a day each tb plotted this way equals 360tb. the tricky part starts when you think of load distribution. but maybe this attempt may be used for vps approaches or third generation pools.
It's simpler than that. If I get a block of say < 500s, then I can assume that it's going to win, and see what my next deadline would be. It's probably not going to be anything useful, but if it is, say a sub 20s block, announcing it fast is key. If the miner is still scanning and it see an accepted deadline it will just move on, even though you might have a better deadline somewhere you haven't read yet.
March 17, 2015, 03:35:00 AM
I am so happy, each time I get paid from burstcoin.io BCPT (Asset payments)
Thanks!!!
Thanks!!!
March 17, 2015, 03:09:56 AM
API burstcoin.de:8125 ?
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125
had to put it on a different server, because burstcoin.de is hostet by a to small package.
Who is:
Marco Feindler
michael martin GmbH & Co.KG
Can we trust them?
That is bobafett
Ok, I trust him ;-)
I get "You have not typed the passphrase correctly, please try again!"
?Error is now fixed. Also the AT works now.
Here are the links, also available at burstcoin.de
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/atlotteries.html
https://burstwallet.for-better.biz:8125/atcrowdfund.html
Still a few Coins to go in my CF for Burstcoin.de. I investet now about 60 hours for Burstcoin.de and the Web Wallet until now. Everybody who wants to use it, please follow the atcrowdfund link and spend some burst to keep the site and the webwallet up!
Also only 760 Blocks until the CF ends. Hurry up guys
And there are no excuses anymore, your donation is only 2 klicks away!!!!
March 17, 2015, 01:00:07 AM
0.127% per day:
Jump to: