Seemingly Inefficient Hashing Question??? - page 2.

gmaxwell

staff

Activity: 4284

Merit: 8808

Quote from: jixapori on May 22, 2012, 01:32:48 PM

Unfortunately bitcoin mining basically wastes a lot of perfectly good energy

Because securing the worlds only completely decentralized currency, which is already inherently forgery proof, against reversal is a waste?

I can only imagine what you think about the costs of handling cash, armored cars, and flying treasury agents around to deal with counterfeiting.

People have proposed alternatives to bitcoin that do additional useful work at the same time— but they're all insecure/vulnerable to cheating. The best we've got is merged mining.

etotheipi

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1093

Core Armory Developer

Quote from: JusticeForYou on May 22, 2012, 02:53:41 PM

Quote from: etotheipi on May 22, 2012, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: JusticeForYou on May 22, 2012, 01:08:22 PM

I thinks there might be a way. Isn't that data useful in any way?

No, not useful at all. If you change one bit in the input, you get a completely different, unpredictable output. By definition, if the hashing function is good (an assumption on which the Bitcoin network relies), there is absolutely nothing useful about saving a hash unless you need to compute that exact same hash (same input) later. By definition, hashing value A, should give you absolutely no information about hashing A' which is even slightly different.

Referencing the Bold highlight.

Unless you explicitly plan to hash something twice, you're not going to. Every hash you perform on the Bitcoin network will be different. If it's not, you're doing something terribly wrong.

JusticeForYou

vip

Activity: 490

Merit: 271

Quote from: etotheipi on May 22, 2012, 02:12:33 PM

Quote from: JusticeForYou on May 22, 2012, 01:08:22 PM

I thinks there might be a way. Isn't that data useful in any way?

No, not useful at all. If you change one bit in the input, you get a completely different, unpredictable output. By definition, if the hashing function is good (an assumption on which the Bitcoin network relies), there is absolutely nothing useful about saving a hash unless you need to compute that exact same hash (same input) later. By definition, hashing value A, should give you absolutely no information about hashing A' which is even slightly different.

Referencing the Bold highlight.

etotheipi

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1093

Core Armory Developer

Quote from: JusticeForYou on May 22, 2012, 01:08:22 PM

I thinks there might be a way. Isn't that data useful in any way?

No, not useful at all. If you change one bit in the input, you get a completely different, unpredictable output. By definition, if the hashing function is good (an assumption on which the Bitcoin network relies), there is absolutely nothing useful about saving a hash unless you need to compute that exact same hash (same input) later. By definition, hashing value A, should give you absolutely no information about hashing A' which is even slightly different.

jixapori

newbie

Activity: 46

Merit: 0

How would random hashes be useful?

Unfortunately bitcoin mining basically wastes a lot of perfectly good energy

JusticeForYou

vip

Activity: 490

Merit: 271

You know at a lumber yard, there is a lot of waste (byproducts). Lumber yards figured out how to use this waste to increase the efficiency.

Question:

In order to get a hash at the current difficulty some Input(x) is hashed can compared to the difficulty requirement, Output(y) = equal required difficulty? If so then Block(N), if not dev/null?

Point being, if you saved the Input(x) and the resulting Output(y) for all hashes, couldn't there be a way to use the waste?

I thinks there might be a way. Isn't that data useful in any way?

Topic: Seemingly Inefficient Hashing Question??? - page 2. (Read 2501 times)