Sunny knows that "good enough" and "dead simple" wins.
Thats probably one of the worst mottoes I've ever. You are right to suggest that we shouldn't over complicate things, but "good enough" never wins.
Topic: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable - page 14. (Read 25785 times)
Thats probably one of the worst mottoes I've ever. You are right to suggest that we shouldn't over complicate things, but "good enough" never wins.
At the end of the day, distributing crypto-equity through fixed algorithms is fundamentally flawed because it does not consider market forces.
That is nonsense. If the exchange rate rises the market value of the money supply also rises. If miners receive 1% of the money supply annually it doesn't matter if a BTC is worth $1 or $100,000. The network isn't distributing "equity" it is providing compensation for securing the network. The subsidy is merely a bootstrapping mechanism. In the future users will pay for security and if they pay 1% to PoW miners or 1% PoS stakeholders they are still paying for security.
You didn't refute my point at all.... If miners receive 1% (which is an underestimate, it is more along the lines of 9% at its current rate) when the price of bitcoin goes up then there compensation goes up regardless of added efficiency or security of the network. So if you have a spike from $1 to $100,000 the cost of securing the network went from 10 cents to $1,000. Except we are not longer in that price range which is why the cost of mining is now more than $500 million.
The important thing is the efficiency is getting better and better, and we are getting more security for the dollar...and bitcoin is in good shape.
Agreed. It just important to understand efficiency can't reduce cost only improve security (by eliminating the potential for an attacker to reduce cost by using more efficient tech).
What you called a pointless distinction earlier is not pointless, because of the ratios of hardware to electricity. I think I almost had a good point.
It doesn't matter if it is paid for in hardware or electricity. Also improvements in efficiency come from Moore's law. The cost per transistor also falls at the same rate (actually power has been lagging behind transistor cost over the last couple generations).
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The important thing is the efficiency is getting better and better, and we are getting more security for the dollar...and bitcoin is in good shape.
Agreed. It just important to understand efficiency can't reduce cost only improve security (by eliminating the potential for an attacker to reduce cost by using more efficient tech).
What you called a pointless distinction earlier is not pointless, because of the ratios of hardware to electricity. I think I almost had a good point.
The important thing is the efficiency is getting better and better, and we are getting more security for the dollar...and bitcoin is in good shape.
Agreed. It just important to understand efficiency can't reduce cost only improve security (by eliminating the potential for an attacker to reduce cost by using more efficient tech).
Gold Medal: Peercoin
I like this solution the most because
it is the simplest. Simple solutions
are usually the best, which is why
proof-of-work and longest chain has
stood the test of time.
It would be nice to see if Peercoin
would work without checkpointing.
Geniuses simplify things...
While merely highly intelligent people complicate the shit out of everything...
(See Ripple, most 2nd Gen Crypto Assets, etc).
Twitter is genius... because it's dead simple.
This is why PeerShares could sweep away the Pretenders...
Sunny knows that "good enough" and "dead simple" wins.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Just updated my post above....man you are hard to argue with (mostly cause you are usually right 
)
Got your points. Thx for the discussion.
)Got your points. Thx for the discussion.
Say the fyookball-1000 mining rig (a fictional machine) gives you 1TH and runs at 1000w. Now the fyookball-2000 comes out and gives you 2TH but runs at 100w. Well, now you doubled the hash but cut the electric bill. By 90%.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
Except why buy 2 why not buy 10 and make even more money ? If it is profitable to deploy 2 it is profitable to deploy 10 and people will. They will keep deploying more and more and more hashing power and until the ROI is right back down to that low level it was before the more efficient hardware came along.
This is the same as ANY commodity business.
Yeah but the thing is the rig is the main cost not the electricity...at least for now.
Well "main" cost is kinda subjective. At $1 per GH/s and 1 J/GH energy is pretty close to half the cost. Margins are still high on hardware so expect hardware prices to fall much faster than energy costs and that will shift more and more towards energy. Still it is a pointless distinction. Miner total cost is amortized hardware + energy costs. If the network gives miners $500M annually then miners are going to spend pretty close to $500M annually as they collectively drive the margin very close to zero (possibly negative). It doesn't matter how efficient the tech is, miners will simply buy and deploy more gear until margins are so low (or negative) that deploying more hardware doesn't make sense.
Once again we have been seeing this continually for five years so it isn't some academic theory. It is a classic prisoner dilema. Sure if there is new technology and miners agree to limit the hashrate of the network then they can increase their margins but they can't and if they tried someone would cheat to make more while the margins are higher. Economics will drive hashrate up and margins down when more efficient tech is possible.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Say the fyookball-1000 mining rig (a fictional machine) gives you 1TH and runs at 1000w. Now the fyookball-2000 comes out and gives you 2TH but runs at 100w. Well, now you doubled the hash but cut the electric bill. By 90%.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
Except why buy 2 why not buy 10 and make even more money ? If it is profitable to deploy 2 it is profitable to deploy 10 and people will. They will keep deploying more and more and more hashing power and until the ROI is right back down to that low level it was before the more efficient hardware came along.
This is the same as ANY commodity business.
Yeah but the thing is the rig is the main cost not the electricity...at least for now.
I'm not trying to troll. I think you are proving my point....it is the costs of the rigs
trying to keep pace with the difficulty.... What's this got to do with the electrical
Efficiency? They are different things.
Anyway, I'm tired of this debate...you are the bitcoin expert here so I'll concede
The argument, I'm probably missing something.
The important thing is the efficiency is getting better and better, and we are
Getting more security for the dollar...and bitcoin is in good shape.
Say the fyookball-1000 mining rig (a fictional machine) gives you 1TH and runs at 1000w. Now the fyookball-2000 comes out and gives you 2TH but runs at 100w. Well, now you doubled the hash but cut the electric bill. By 90%.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
Except why buy 2 why not buy 10 and make even more money? If it is profitable to deploy 2 it is profitable to deploy 10 and people will. The sooner and the more you buy deploy the higher your return. It actually doesn't matter if you don't do it, someone else will. The hashrate will rise until there is no (or miminal) return available just like it was before the new more efficient tech came along. Once again we have seen this happen on a continual basis for almost five years now. It has always followed this trend and it always will. If margins are high then miners will deploy hardware until the margins aren't. More efficient tech is very profitable at the current difficulty at the time is is released however collectively miners will eventually drive the difficulty right back up to near break even when using the more efficient gear.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Ok, not "will" for sure but certainly "could". There's no guarantee an increase in energy efficiency will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in cost efficiency. Right?
Of course there will be. If tomorrow miners were earning 1000% annual ROI what do you think would happen?
Miner cost will always be within a few % of miner revenue unless you think people will simply allow 1000% ROI to exist and not deploy more hashpower to extract that profit.
This is an oversimplification. ROI within what time frame? A miner expects to get his money back for the rig in a certain amount of time but there are many different rigs being sold at different times to different miners at different prices all while the difficulty is increasing. People are making predictions on what the difficulty will be with differing degrees of accuracy. Then there is also risk and cashflow considerations that each miner has to contend with.
Say the fyookball-1000 mining rig (a fictional machine) gives you 1TH and runs at 1000w. Now the fyookball-2000 comes out and gives you 2TH but runs at 100w. Well, now you doubled the hash but cut the electric bill. By 90%.
If every miner owned 1 FB1000 and suddenly replaced with the FB2000 , each miner would be making the same when the difficulty changes anyway.....but the power consumption is down.
At the end of the day, distributing crypto-equity through fixed algorithms is fundamentally flawed because it does not consider market forces.
It doesn't make sense to distribute equity this way, but it is quite possibly the only legitimate way to distribute money.
And anywayz, like OMG. PoS was sooo last week. Nxt's secret sauce smells bad and the nothing-at-stake problem remains unsolved. The new alt-coin narrative is protocol-enforced privacy. Get with the program LOL!
At the end of the day, distributing crypto-equity through fixed algorithms is fundamentally flawed because it does not consider market forces.
That is nonsense. If the exchange rate rises the market value of the money supply also rises. If miners receive 1% of the money supply annually it doesn't matter if a BTC is worth $1 or $100,000. The network isn't distributing "equity" it is providing compensation for securing the network. The subsidy is merely a bootstrapping mechanism. In the future users will pay for security and if they pay 1% to PoW miners or 1% PoS stakeholders they are still paying for security.
Ok, not "will" for sure but certainly "could". There's no guarantee an increase in energy efficiency will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in cost efficiency. Right?
Of course there will be. If tomorrow miners were earning 1000% annual ROI what do you think would happen?
Miner cost will always be within a few % of miner revenue unless you think people will simply allow 1000% ROI to exist and not deploy more hashpower to extract that profit.
Fine. 
you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.
In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
It isn't a "problem" but to say improved efficiency will reduce the cost of the network is an inaccuracy. Reducing the revenue available to miners will reduce the cost expended by miners. It would not be good for security but a 90% reduction in the block reward right now would reduce the "cost" of the network by 90%, a 90% reduction in the J/GH or $/GH would not.
Ok, not "will" for sure but certainly "could". There's no guarantee an increase in energy efficiency will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in cost efficiency. Right?
The cost of mining from the perspective of the bitcoin network is the block reward provided to miners. None of the costs or efficiencies within the process of mining matter because the network is incapable of taking those variables into account. The cost of security increases with value of bitcoin. If the value of bitcoin increases proportionately more than given decreases in block reward then there is a net increase in the cost of securing the network.
At the end of the day, distributing crypto-equity through fixed algorithms is fundamentally flawed because it does not consider market forces.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Fine. you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.
In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
It isn't a "problem" but to say improved efficiency will reduce the cost of the network is an inaccuracy. Reducing the revenue available to miners will reduce the cost expended by miners. It would not be good for security but a 90% reduction in the block reward right now would reduce the "cost" of the network by 90%, a 90% reduction in the J/GH or $/GH would not.
Ok, not "will" for sure but certainly "could". There's no guarantee an increase in energy efficiency will be accompanied by a corresponding increase in cost efficiency. Right?
Fine. you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.
In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
It isn't a "problem" but to say improved efficiency will reduce the cost of the network is an inaccuracy. Reducing the revenue available to miners will reduce the cost expended by miners. It would not be good for security but a 90% reduction in the block reward right now would reduce the "cost" of the network by 90%, a 90% reduction in the J/GH or $/GH would not.
Qora has a new POS system!!!!! And if its true that BCNext created it, it would be NXT's evolution - the real BCNexts project. There are many indications for this. If you wanna find out, check the relevant thread.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
You're not taking into account the fact
that over time, older hardware will die.
It will become more expensive to maintain
it than simply to upgrade. Plus it will
be cheaper to run because its more efficient.
that over time, older hardware will die.
It will become more expensive to maintain
it than simply to upgrade. Plus it will
be cheaper to run because its more efficient.
If old hardware goes offline then new hardware will be deployed to take advantage of the higher profitability. The network cost in BTC terms is just as high today as it was when the network was secured by GPUs. Efficiency of the network has improved by at least 100x yet costs remain roughly the same by your logic the cost should have declined by 99% yet it hasn't. I am not forgetting anything. The cost expended by miners will always be within some % of the revenue paid to miners. It doesn't matter what hardware is used. Miner profit is the gap between costs and revenue. The higher the profit/return the more incentive there is to deploy additional hardware.
Fine.
you're basically saying the same thing I said, which is that efficiency has been increasingly tremendously, with the twist that the network is also growing tremendously. I agree.In any case, I don't see this as any kind of problem for Bitcoin. Do you?
You're not taking into account the fact
that over time, older hardware will die.
It will become more expensive to maintain
it than simply to upgrade. Plus it will
be cheaper to run because its more efficient.
that over time, older hardware will die.
It will become more expensive to maintain
it than simply to upgrade. Plus it will
be cheaper to run because its more efficient.
If old hardware goes offline then new hardware will be deployed to take advantage of the higher profitability. The network cost in BTC terms is just as high today as it was when the network was secured by GPUs. Efficiency of the network has improved by at least 100x yet costs remain roughly the same by your logic the cost should have declined by 99% yet it hasn't. I am not forgetting anything. The cost expended by miners will always be within some % of the revenue paid to miners. It doesn't matter what hardware is used. Miner profit is the gap between costs and revenue. The higher the profit/return the more incentive there is to deploy additional hardware.
Jump to: