Topic: please delete - page 4. (Read 1052 times)

1. Maybe but if that guy and his friends make up the 99% of the network (In theory) Why would they listen to the 1% of little guys running 2 or 3 units at home or a handful in a DC?
Majority of retail investors I'm learning have no clue at all how this works and are entering based on fomo or trusting the guy that does understand.

2. Eth to me is a way to get my bitcoin without running crazy loud gear and an expanding mining operation out of my control, no limits on how much eth there is ,is concerning considering the value, I've read an article a while back of a guy exploiting it and basically fabricating it out of thin air. Pretty unfair you have to stake 32eth to have a say so with the new standard.(last I checked I haven't been keeping up as much these days)

3. I've personally wondered if he left around when asics came out, the point of no return if you will. Asics essentially centralized BTC in a way , starting with suppliers in particular , bitmain. Lately I've felt the only clear winners in BTC are the guys that where in early or asic sellers. I personally don't think that was Satoshi's vision. What good is a decentralized currency if majority of it's owned by the elites already?

To be clear I'm a little guy, even with a pretty good understanding how bitcoin works I don't feel like I'd have any say so where it goes, because I'm not running 1PH or even have 1BTC to stake.
I run a few nodes though   in 2022 that's not saying much.

People that have spent 20k on a piece of gear follow the users' demand, though.

Well, miners shouldn't have a greater vote than regulars users generally, but in Ethereum it really doesn't matter. It suffers from far worse centralizing-kind of issues such as the dev team affects a lot as you said, there's a tendency towards PoS; lots of coins are also pre-mined.

What's wrong with the current system? I'm sure the reason he left was to avoid having a central point of Vitalik.

Us electricity consumption vs mining growth is quiet fascinating. Our usage really hasn't budged in the last 17 years.
This proves nothing really but it is hard to tell what industries effect what, Lightbulbs for example in lumens per watt have gotten incredibly efficient, even mining gear has  s19 was 34J/TH @95TH the new s19 xp hydro gear 20J/TH @ 255TH , but as this gear becomes more efficient they also want more out of it so it doesn't seem like change is happening but it is.
As I said in an earlier post "However the 1% that owns 99% of the network strength will probably not vote for such measures." consensus would have to vote by switching hashpower/staking a node or whatever concept someone conjures up to a new systems idea that promotes efficiency, guys that have spent 20k on a single piece of gear simply would laugh at you and tell you why it cant be done. The guys that where getting 100BTC block rewards on 45watt processors however might could/would.
Bitcoins smarter than me but ETH is incredibly complex in comparison, they also dont really care about the miners the miners dont have a vote if the dev's around telling people they can stake more and earn more this new way. But if ETH and its complexity's can actually pull of PoS, bitcoin could too I think but maybe not , there is a reason Bitcoin is king and all forks have ultimately failed in comparison.     I'm sure if Satoshi where around he would advocate a new system that advocates better decentralization but by his design he wouldn't have much say in it except a voice of reason.

I have to disagree here because there never was any kind of debate about PoW versus PoS. I've said it many times but PoS died in early years when it was introduced and failed to provide security that was even a fraction of what PoW provides. It was only recently that they pulled it out of the grave and started creating a fake debate.

Not at all. There are a lot of solutions and there could be more if the "waste" FUD was real. There is no reason to use a seriously flawed algorithm even if PoW were bad!
The only "solution" is only PoS when the coin has a massive premine and the devs want to make profit on those premined coins without having to sell them

Well for most wars, at least one side is usually fighting for their survival, so they would probably not consider that to be wasted energy.

I think the argument that bitcoin mining is "wasting" electricity is really just part of the PoW vs PoS debate. If you believe that bitcoin PoW is "wasting" electricity, the only solution is to switch to PoS mining. It is really as simple as that. I explained earlier that only less than 1% of bitcoin PoW energy consumption is duplicated.

I am not a PoW maximalist, and am willing to listen to arguments in favor of switching to PoS mining. However I have not heard a compelling argument in favor of switching.

The thing about insulating the miner is to divert the noise outside, you can't just make a soundproof box and put the miner inside and that's it, what you will have is one cooked miner in probably the same time as a thanksgiving turkey. You need to have a flow of air and you need tubes, basically redirecting with this the whole noise outside, and if your house is too close to your neighbor he won't be happy hearing a vacuum cleaner noise 24/7.

Oh and yeah, no liquid cooling heat transfer, immersion system uses fans, it would make no sense.
Immersion cooling is obviously the solution but those things don't really work with random heat consumption such as a boiler, you would need to scale it at the exact size to keep the water hot but at the same time to overheat, add more miners and what are you going to do, heat your pool constantly? The other aspect is the cost, is your heat exchanger system for hot water more expensive than what you would pay normally for it in ten years? Paying 10k for a bitcoin boiler with no Asics included? Not really a way to save money.

Anyhow, since both Micro and Bitmain are still betting on over 3kw miners and looking more and more at industrial miners like the mM53 that will come with 6.5kw consumption, the market share of real home miners as in mining in your own home, will probably go down well below 1% in the close future. That is, if we're not already there.

I think I saw it before when I tried to look  for objective truth and read both sides of the story, before making my own oppinion.

You know that killing this industries you are de facto committing mass suicide and you are not solving any real problems.
This would just mean that some other materials would be used instead of oil or gas, that would be equally bad if not worse, and it would require that most people stay at home all the time.
And of course, fake elite would still use all the ''dirty'' stuff and fly around the world in their nice private jets.

Crazy thing is that some people are even calculating carbon footprint  of human beings, and they are saying it's bad to have kids because they produce co2...  
it looks like that same people that don't like Bitcoin with proof of work also don't like humans so much.
btw aren't all beings on earth including human carbon based life forms?

Substantiating this further:
Which reminds me of how important transparency is. You don't need all this hustle and bustle to calculate the carbon footprint of bitcoin. Difficulty speaks for itself. You may not know the percentage of ASICs, GPUS etc., that is used, but you can calculate the true environmental impact much easier and more accurately.

The carbon footprint of a single bank, yeah, but I don't think it even includes the damage they are doing by keeping the coal and gas / fossil fuels industry alive.

I mean think all of the central and commercial banks, ATMs, credit/debit cards, employers, transports, money issuance etc. Now think of bitcoin, wherein more than half of its waste isn't so environmentally damaging as it comes from solar panels and other renewable sources.

There was a report I'd seen from HSBC where they stated their environmental footprint of 2012. The link is surprisingly dead, but web archive is always there when you need it: https://blackhatcoiner.com/files/130521-hsbc-susreport-2012-online-ready-version.pdf


And that's just from one bank. But, I guess it's in no media's favor to get involved with it.

Not even wars; simply our fiat financial system is already responsible for a big chunk of pollution. Have you read this article yet?
https://medium.com/@magusperivallon/a-financial-hail-mary-for-the-climate-an-argument-for-bitcoin-adoption-1a695b668529
It's stunning what a huge negative impact the current system has on the environment.

I honestly don't have a slightest idea how this could work in real life, but it's obviously not going to be asic fans running in water like submarines 
Fans are used for cooling of the chip and I am not sure how long would chips survive if under higher temperature load for long time.

If we take a look at a bigger picture, most of the energy produced in the world is wasted anyway, and bitcoin mining has just a tiny percentage of total energy productions, but it looks bigger when you zoom in and talk about that on MSM.
Can you only imagine how much energy is wasted for all the wars happening constantly around the world for various reasons...

Some smaller/hobby/home miners can potentially double their mining equipment as space heaters if they live in a location that is cold at least part of the year. Unfortunately, this is not really something that can scale because at one point, someone will own more than enough miners to keep their home warm.

---

When oil companies are mining oil, they will sometimes (always?) encounter natural gas, and often there is no natural gas pipeline nearby. Historically, oil companies have had to burn this natural gas into the atmosphere, however, some oil companies are buying up bitcoin miners, and converting the natural gas into electricity that is used by these bitcoin miners. These miners are still consuming electricity, however the electricity they are using would otherwise literally be burned if not for the miners.

Yes, that's pretty much the exact same way that miners are selected, by being fastest - good analogy!

I'm not 100% sure; because what's loud are the fans, but when you heat water with your ASIC, you don't need fans right? Since you transfer all that heat into the water.
I've also seen someone submerge S19's into those special oily non-conductive fluids and exchange the heat from the 'oil circuit' into the 'water circuit'.

I know they are not really ''selected'', I just used his words and I forgot to put quotation marks.
Imagine a teacher giving a task to solve math problems in a classroom full of kids, first who solve them are ''selected'' or ''chosen'' one.  

It's not a bad idea, but only thing that would be annoying in this case could be noise generated by mining.
This is not unsolvable problem, because I saw some special cases that are made to totally isolate all the noise generated by mining, in your case you would need to better isolate your boiler

They're not selected; after all, who would select them? There is nobody to select something. The very process of mining though, 'selects' one miner (by being the first to extend the chain correctly) whose block candidate is added to the blockchain. So this 'dice roll' is what mining does.

Yeah, it's pretty nice to use the heat since it increases the efficiency. If you could use all the heat, the efficiency could theoretically exceed 100%. I was thinking about putting ASIC chips into boilers for instance, instead of a plain resistance wire; the expended energy would be the same, but you would get heat + Bitcoin instead of just heat.

Today I read part of this article which I found really interesting. https://medium.com/@magusperivallon/a-financial-hail-mary-for-the-climate-an-argument-for-bitcoin-adoption-1a695b668529
It appears that according to various studies, the existing banking sector is a big contributor to pollution and climate change in a multitude of ways and the tiny energy footprint of Bitcoin globally is really nothing to be concerned about. Apparently, the articles goes on to show how Bitcoin mining and this high demand for electricity could become a big driver for the expansion of solar plants and other types of renewable energy that so far were unprofitable to build. But I've yet to finish it.

So in essence, I'm not at all worried about energy consumption and wasted work.

This is terrible idea that only leads to centralization and single point of failure.

I think that miners are selected randomly even now, so there is no need for inventing the wheel yet again.

Announce to whom? Some central authority maybe?
As soon as they are online they are announcing they are ready for mining, no need to add anything extra on top.

I saw one cool project for using all the heat generated from bitcoin asic mining for heating the swimming pool, and I think we need to think more like this.
Other people are using heat for heating up their home during winter and cold season, and I am sure there could be other interesting projects like this.
If I remember correctly Intel recently created new energy efficient bitcoin mining chip, so it's possible to have new developments in that field.

That's not what a "soft fork" means. A "soft fork" is a backward compatible change to the protocol. What you are describing is generally called a "fork/branch/split in the chain" and one of the blocks will eventually become a "stale block".

It doesn't happen very often, as you already wrote.

wrong. this is a frequent misconception though. and someone else already explained why it is a misconception. bottom line is, no energy is really wasted since the entire network hash rate is needed to find one block every 10 minutes. end of story.

Does #3 have a name? or is that just something you thought could work?

#2 does have a name. So it's nothing new. wonder why it hasn't been adpoted with open arms. well probably because there are good reasons.

Increasing the nonce effectively produces a random number. What I said is a very simplified explanation of what happens.

In other words, every block has a range of hash values that it will produce as the nonce is incremented, and the first value in that range that satisfies the size requirement of the difficulty level exists at a specific height in that range and therefore requires that much work to reach regardless of whether it's one miner working solo or a whole pool.  That's all true, I never argued otherwise, but none of it supports your assertion that what I said is false.