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.
Topic: Which Proof of Stake System is the Most Viable - page 15. (Read 25752 times)
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The overall cost won't drop. Efficiency is per hash but there will just be more hashes. If efficiency improved 10x, then yes the energy (and thus cost) per GH would be 1/10th but there would just be 10x as many GH/s. The network is more secure but cost is the same.
There will never be a scenario where the hashrate won't rise when more efficient hardware becomes available. Changes in miner compensation is the only thing which will affect miner cost. If hardware is more efficient then miners would make more profit. Other users would see that and deploy hardware to gain access to those easy profits which would drive the hashrate up.
As pointed out we say that with the emergence of ASICs. Now the exchange rate also rose and the block reward halves which makes it not an apples to apples comparison but even if the exchange hadn't rose as the network become more efficient then miners would be producing higher profits which would lead to more hardware being deployed and the cost would eventually be the same at 100 J/GH or 1 J/GH.
Simple put baring a change in miner compensation (which is based on block reward & exchange rate) if #1 improves by 10x then #2 will increase by 10x as well.
There will never be a scenario where the hashrate won't rise when more efficient hardware becomes available. Changes in miner compensation is the only thing which will affect miner cost. If hardware is more efficient then miners would make more profit. Other users would see that and deploy hardware to gain access to those easy profits which would drive the hashrate up.
As pointed out we say that with the emergence of ASICs. Now the exchange rate also rose and the block reward halves which makes it not an apples to apples comparison but even if the exchange hadn't rose as the network become more efficient then miners would be producing higher profits which would lead to more hardware being deployed and the cost would eventually be the same at 100 J/GH or 1 J/GH.
Simple put baring a change in miner compensation (which is based on block reward & exchange rate) if #1 improves by 10x then #2 will increase by 10x as well.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The watt per GhS ratio has been dropping and continues to drop
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
No it won't (or at least not for that reason). The efficiency of GPUs was ~ 50x that of CPUs however the that just resulting in 50x the hardware and as a result 50x the difficulty. The same dynamic played out in the form of ASICs vs GPUs. More efficient hardware improves security but they don't reduce the cost. It improves security because a well funded attacker would always pick the most efficient solution. If the defenders were armed with CPUs when an attacker spent a couple million to deploy a 2 PH/s ASIC farm it would be like fighting tanks with slingshots. The efficiency of defenders must continue to improve with technological progress to ensure an attacker can't "cheat" and simply use more efficient hardware to obtain 51% of the computing power at a reduced cost.
The justification for PoW is that it is proven to work. In the long run hardware will be commoditized which means the miner cost will be slightly below the miner revenue. If revenue rises then more hardware will be deployed.
Lets be clear on what we're talking about. I was referring to electricity costs (not hardware costs).
Also, what you are saying is true but different than what I'm saying.
There's 2 variables:
1. efficiency, more of which drops the electricity costs,
2. hashrate, more of which increases the electricity costs.
what i'm saying is that electricty costs will drop because
of the increased efficiency. There may be an increase
in hashrate which will offset this, but thats unrelated, and
obviously would be accompanied by an increase in security
as you pointed out.
Of course PoS isn't free either. If Peercoin was worth as much as BTC (value of money supply) then its 1% inflation rate would be about $70M a year. To make the comparison more direct lets assume that PPC is no longer mining a meaningful number of PoW blocks is operating as PoS only.
The watt per GhS ratio has been dropping and continues to drop
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
I agree with DeathAndTaxes. You are also not looking at the fact that the mining cost is fixed and does not correspond to the market price of bitcoin. So if the value of bitcoin rises so does the cost of securing the network. It currently cost $500 million to secure the network, but if bitcoin is going to succeed that cost will dramatically increase even given the halving of block rewards.
The watt per GhS ratio has been dropping and continues to drop
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
No it won't (or at least not for that reason). The efficiency of GPUs was ~ 50x that of CPUs however the that just resulting in 50x the hardware and as a result 50x the difficulty. The same dynamic played out in the form of ASICs vs GPUs. More efficient hardware improves security but they don't reduce the cost. It improves security because a well funded attacker would always pick the most efficient solution. If the defenders were armed with CPUs when an attacker spent a couple million to deploy a 2 PH/s ASIC farm it would be like fighting tanks with slingshots. The efficiency of defenders must continue to improve with technological progress to ensure an attacker can't "cheat" and simply use more efficient hardware to obtain 51% of the computing power at a reduced cost.
The justification for PoW is that it is proven to work. In the long run hardware will be commoditized which means the miner cost will be slightly below the miner revenue. If revenue rises then more hardware will be deployed.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
The watt per GhS ratio has been dropping and continues to drop
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
as ASICs keeps improving.
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison
Some of the best rigs are getting close to .1 watt /gHs,
which would drop the $500 million figure by 99%.
So, overall, its going to get cheaper and more efficient
to do proof-of-work.
Generally, yes.
What do you want to nitpick about?
What do you want to nitpick about?
You have to understand that cryptography secures your wallet not the network. The network is secured via consensus. Bitcoin as with all proof of whatever systems is a resource democracy. It is the natural structure for decision making of all distributed organizations throughout history. If you have 51% of the capital in the world you run it. This is the same phenomena with bitcoin proof of work. Your say over the network is proportional to your share of the designated resource, with bitcoin that is hashing power. Miners delegate there hashing powers to mining pools and those are the people you effectively trust to run the network. They are like the board of directors of the company that is bitcoin.
Every resource democracy works the same and is subject to the same 51% attack. The problem with bitcoin in particularly is that the capital intensive nature of mining disproportionately advantages those with economies of scale and ultimately centralizing the decision making powers. These are not trustless systems, rather you are distributing trust amongst your peers with hopes that at the very least 51% of them are trustworthy. Regardless of the system, you are not trusting math you are trusting people.
Agree about the 51% thing... it applies to every system.
Disagree about the economies of scale being a problem though. ASICS and hashing power are likely becoming increasingly commoditized, scalable, and distributed.
1) thats not true 2) even if it were true how does that justify spending $500 million a year on securing the network, when that cost is not necessary.
I would vote for NXT but I am not allowed
it seems it is well built but the distribution is not so great !!
oh well so is BITCOIN ;-)
it seems it is well built but the distribution is not so great !!
oh well so is BITCOIN ;-)
Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge.That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Website says this
Quote
What do I need to start forging?
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge.That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Website says this
Quote
What do I need to start forging?
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.
A client and some NXT. Once you have unlocked your wallet with your passphrase you are able to forge.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Generally, yes.
What do you want to nitpick about?
What do you want to nitpick about?
You have to understand that cryptography secures your wallet not the network. The network is secured via consensus. Bitcoin as with all proof of whatever systems is a resource democracy. It is the natural structure for decision making of all distributed organizations throughout history. If you have 51% of the capital in the world you run it. This is the same phenomena with bitcoin proof of work. Your say over the network is proportional to your share of the designated resource, with bitcoin that is hashing power. Miners delegate there hashing powers to mining pools and those are the people you effectively trust to run the network. They are like the board of directors of the company that is bitcoin.
Every resource democracy works the same and is subject to the same 51% attack. The problem with bitcoin in particularly is that the capital intensive nature of mining disproportionately advantages those with economies of scale and ultimately centralizing the decision making powers. These are not trustless systems, rather you are distributing trust amongst your peers with hopes that at the very least 51% of them are trustworthy. Regardless of the system, you are not trusting math you are trusting people.
Agree about the 51% thing... it applies to every system.
Disagree about the economies of scale being a problem though. ASICS and hashing power are likely becoming increasingly commoditized, scalable, and distributed.
Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Nxt doesn't require you have to your wallet open to forge. That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
It is an issue with peercoin not dpos.
Generally, yes.
What do you want to nitpick about?
What do you want to nitpick about?
You have to understand that cryptography secures your wallet not the network. The network is secured via consensus. Bitcoin as with all proof of whatever systems is a resource democracy. It is the natural structure for decision making of all distributed organizations throughout history. If you have 51% of the capital in the world you run it. This is the same phenomena with bitcoin proof of work. Your say over the network is proportional to your share of the designated resource, with bitcoin that is hashing power. Miners delegate there hashing powers to mining pools and those are the people you effectively trust to run the network. They are like the board of directors of the company that is bitcoin.
Every resource democracy works the same and is subject to the same 51% attack. The problem with bitcoin in particularly is that the capital intensive nature of mining disproportionately advantages those with economies of scale and ultimately centralizing the decision making powers. These are not trustless systems, rather you are distributing trust amongst your peers with hopes that at the very least 51% of them are trustworthy. Regardless of the system, you are not trusting math you are trusting people.
Has there been a clear run down of what NEM's proof of importance system consists of?
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Isn't another issue is you need your wallet open to "forge/mint"...
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
That seems bad for security. Not sure if that's an issue
with just NXT, or applies to Peercoin and DPOS as well.
None as they don't resolve the "nothing at stake" problem. It may be possible that some future PoS resolves this. Yes NXT claims to resolve it via secret magical code in TF but until open source and peer reviewed it is just a claim.
don't waste your power (prepare for major release on monday):
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623761.new#new
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=623761.new#new
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
Generally, yes.
What do you want to nitpick about?
What do you want to nitpick about?
Jump to: