bitcoin hashrate does not have to exponentially increase.
difficulty can go up and down.
bitcoin rewards go down buy combined fee's can go up
in the future bitcoin mining will not be stuck to how many coins are produced, but how much fee's are accumulated per block
there are many variables that can influence a miners profits and influence how many miners are at work.
it does not require an ever increasing eternal rise of miners becoming central. it can actually cause distributing miners over more multiple locations
so your possible:
deadend 1: coin reward reduction
solution 1: more tx/fee's per block
EG imagine network was rewarding 0.78125(year 2032) but it was costing $781,250 to mine a block. meaning btc had to be $1m a coin to break even (if 1btc=$1m then 0.78125btc = $781,250)
but does not mean the price has to go up to over $1 a coin.. it can also mean more transactions per block to bump the reward to 1btc
say that 1BTC was $781,250, block reward was 0.78125($610,351.56) and combined fees were 0.21875($170,898.44) = 1btc($781,250) total.
deadend 2: physical electric limits
solution 2: distribute hash rate over more people in smaller devices in more locations
EG imagine instead of 10 pools in 10 countries. it was 100 pools in 150 countries
instead of slicing a pizza into 10 slices where they get to eat 14 times a day. its 100 slices meaning only eating 1.4 times day so each person has more they are wanting. thus keeping competition alive without overdoing power grids of 10 locations because its noe spread over 150 locations.
then next stage is that the difficulty doesnt need to then be soo high to need to cost say $15m a coin. it can actually bring difficulty down where each location doesnt need 10% of network power. and just needs 0.66% of network. meaning its more harder for any one location to 51%
deadend 3: price need to endlessly increase
solution 3: ever heard volatility. ups and down pumps and dumps, dips and hype. people can make money on the ups and downs, not just the ups
anyway. your worries and fears are not even your worries or fear, they are concerns which your great grandkids might have to consider which of the many variable paths to take next for bitcoin
Topic: Why BTC POW is technically moving towards an dead end (Read 513 times)
Still no one here really deals with the argument of the "dead end"
Again the energy consumption will rise because of
people want more money so ->
1) they buy more and
2) technically better miners
-> that conclude in a pemanent growing energy consumption.
I deny again that there is an end in how fast solving the sha 256 function in the next 20 years because people will always invent computer a little faster.
Maybe my numbers are wrong and it takes longer but it happens. And technically there is a limit to deliver electricity and if not:
One other thing not discussed here
When there is electrictiy in an glut so you can get it everywhere without investing, POW again does not make any sense because it does not put the important value in it.
Bicoiners say only investing work makes the value, if electricity has no hard work anymore the arguement stick
Again the energy consumption will rise because of
people want more money so ->
1) they buy more and
2) technically better miners
-> that conclude in a pemanent growing energy consumption.
I deny again that there is an end in how fast solving the sha 256 function in the next 20 years because people will always invent computer a little faster.
Maybe my numbers are wrong and it takes longer but it happens. And technically there is a limit to deliver electricity and if not:
One other thing not discussed here
When there is electrictiy in an glut so you can get it everywhere without investing, POW again does not make any sense because it does not put the important value in it.
Bicoiners say only investing work makes the value, if electricity has no hard work anymore the arguement stick
I see you two have your comedy routine practice well in hand and serious conversation is not what you want.
Sorry that we don't comply with your agenda. Maybe we need arguments to start a serious conversation? 
I see you two have your comedy routine practice well in hand and serious conversation is not what you want.
So I bid you good day.
So I bid you good day.
I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science.
This reminded me of Feynman. 
Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.
Hmm, I suddenly feel an association swinging around my head. Couldn't the same thing had been said for the hundreds of years standing fiat currencies back in 2009? I think this changes the subject; we currently examine the potential of a crypto. In other words: Its underlying technology. I also notice that this topic is not really any different than all of the other PoW vs PoS topics that we already had in the past in here; so maybe people like OP should use the search function and read / potentially 'resurrect' (if not too old) one of those threads instead of creating new ones all the time, with different wording but the same repeating arguments.
A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.
What to corrupt exactly? The pools? The miners of those pools? The owners of the pools?If you still don't understand , and still are not believing even the person who won a turing award.
No, I don't. In this field, we eliminate trust, we don't include it. And to be honest, I won't believe any person who'll come and try to convince me for their invention with their honors instead of their actual work.Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.
May I assume you haven't fully acknowledged how it works too?I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science.
This reminded me of Feynman. Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.
Hmm, I suddenly feel an association swinging around my head. Couldn't the same thing had been said for the hundreds of years standing fiat currencies back in 2009? I think this changes the subject; we currently examine the potential of a crypto. In other words: Its underlying technology. But newer tech has greater possibilities.
Okay so look: a blockchain should (!) be distributed, decentralized. Forks can happen (and are resolved) because not all nodes can have the same view of the network in a decentralized setting and sometimes blocks don't propagate fast enough, so it's possible that two blocks are mined as successors of the same common block. How does newer tech make sure that it can never happen? How does it ensure that it's absolutely impossible (as you're saying) that everyone always has the exact same view of the network?
The PoS design of Algorand makes forks impossible and that is according to
Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner. *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*
I don't believe in 'argumentum ab auctoritate'; we don't do that in science. Only fools blindly trust (apparent) authorities. I know people, very smart ones, who developed pretty sophisticated algorithms for different types of proofs, yet they don't understand PoW. One does not exclude the other.Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner. *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*
Also you don't have to tell us what a Turing Award is dude..
First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.
Wait a minute; why are we now talking about hard forks? You do realize there is a difference between hard forks ('A hard fork is a change to a blockchain protocol that renders older versions invalid.' https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/) and non-intentional forks ('Not all forks are intentional. With a widely distributed open-source codebase, a fork can happen accidentally when not all nodes are replicating the same information. Usually, these types of accidental forks are identified and resolved.' https://www.coindesk.com/learn/hard-fork-vs-soft-fork/)?“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
In Bitcoin, we also 'separately agree upon each new block' and it's 'guaranteed to remain on the blockchain forever'. That's why in case of an accidental fork, which so far happened very few times and required a 1 block reorg, by simply waiting one more block, the fork is resolved (it was 'agreed' which chain to use) and all is fine & dandy.The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”
So they're probably running some sort of protocol as soon as a fork occurs / is about to occur and sync. Okay, good for them. So? We just do that in the next block; in the end the result is the same.Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.
Okay, we're back to 'people are impatient' then. 
So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer
Except that no merchant would consider a new not yet proven altcoin (one of 10,000) instead of 10+ years standing Bitcoin.Interesting to know that algorand gives a more secure transaction at a almost instant speed while not needing to compromise the majority % of the power grid like bitcoin.
You claim it's more secure yet Bitcoin is here for over 10 years as #1 and there hasn't been a lot of actually critical bugs in Bitcoin itself, cool cool. This also again shows you haven't understood anything yet. 'Compromising power' is the what gives Bitcoin so much security. You would need to not only get a ton of mining hardware (that doesn't exist) to attack Bitcoin, but also build a huge power plant or probably actually multiple of those. It's a totally different thing than just putting a few billions into an altcoin & getting a ton of voting shares immediately.
But this is OT now. I thought you wanted to prove how 'BTC POW is moving towards a dead end'; not discussing '[insert random altcoin] VS Bitcoin'.
A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.
Oh you don't seem to understand that the pool operators don't own the hardware.If one goes rogue (or multiple), you know what the miners do?
I'm showing you:
It takes literally 1 click to change your pool to something else.
Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.
Not a good way to make friends here dude. Especially if such a statement comes from someone apparently being pretty on the left side of this curve.
Quote
The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
I still wait to find out how.https://www.algorand.com/resources/blog/algorands-core-technology-in-a-nutshell
Quote
Security.
Now we come to security. Assume that I am a very powerful adversary, capable of corrupting users extremely quickly whenever I want. Clearly, I would love to corrupt the members of the committee, but I have a problem: I do not know who they are.
This is so because committee members are selected by a secretly run, cryptographically fair, individual lottery. Thus, only they know who they are, up to the moment in which they propagate through the network both their winning tickets and their opinions about the block. Only at that time I might learn who the committee members are and, given my super powers, I can immediately corrupt the entire committee. But so what? Corrupting them at this time is too late. Whatever the committee members had to say, they have already said, and their winning tickets and up-or-down opinions about the block are virally propagating throughout the network. I have no more power to put their messages back in the bottle than a government has the power to put back in the bottle messages virally propagated by WikiLeaks.
In other words, the Algorand approach is secure because beforehand, an adversary does not know whom to corrupt, and by the time he does, corruption is useless.
Now we come to security. Assume that I am a very powerful adversary, capable of corrupting users extremely quickly whenever I want. Clearly, I would love to corrupt the members of the committee, but I have a problem: I do not know who they are.
This is so because committee members are selected by a secretly run, cryptographically fair, individual lottery. Thus, only they know who they are, up to the moment in which they propagate through the network both their winning tickets and their opinions about the block. Only at that time I might learn who the committee members are and, given my super powers, I can immediately corrupt the entire committee. But so what? Corrupting them at this time is too late. Whatever the committee members had to say, they have already said, and their winning tickets and up-or-down opinions about the block are virally propagating throughout the network. I have no more power to put their messages back in the bottle than a government has the power to put back in the bottle messages virally propagated by WikiLeaks.
In other words, the Algorand approach is secure because beforehand, an adversary does not know whom to corrupt, and by the time he does, corruption is useless.
A Comparison to Bitcoin PoW, is if any one knows the 3 to 4 mining pool operators that have over 51% hashrate, all they have to do is corrupt them.
If you still don't understand , and still are not believing even the person who won a turing award.
I can't help someone understand, who does not want to understand.
Here is the source code
https://github.com/algorand
Take some computer programming classes until you find someone that can explain it to you.
Quote
First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.
But, this is more of a feature than a problem.Quote
The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
I still wait to find out how.Quote
The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached.
So, when and how is consensus reached for sure?Quote
Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.
And yet, it's happening in every chain. Consensus happens separately, not simultaneously. Quote
Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.
Which brings me to how again.Quote
So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer
Algorand cures cancer. The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown
This is a very good point. It's also worth mentioning the halvings; meaning not only are ASIC improvements going to hit a certain performance wall, also the rewards will get lower, pushing down the amount of miners running. So effectively, the power consumption will always be bound to price/coin and coins/block.but it wont push down the number of miners running. because there are many factors at play to keep them interested
EG
if there was a law that made it so a location/premises limit was 10gwh
a asic single farm of 20GW will just set up 2 locations of 10GW to stay within the law
its not that miners give up when hitting their location limit. its that they set up alot more locations. thus decentralising the geo-laws that try to limit miners
also the propaganda of the reward halving.. lets handle that
EG (describing one propaganda worse case view)
if bitcoin transactions were stuck to only doing say 4000tx/block and each tx was 250bytes at 10sat a byte for the next 15 years at total of 0.1btc a block in fee (1mb tx utility(witness scalefactor cludge))
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.1 = 3.225
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.1 = 1.6625
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 0.1 = 0.88125
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 0.1 = 0.490625
yea your think oh no. miners will stop mining
BUT imagine if bitcoin transactions were NOT stuck to 4000tx/block at 10sat a byte for the next 15 years
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.2 = 3.325 (8000tx at 10sat/byte (2mb actual tx utility))
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.5 = 1.9625(16000tx at 10sat/byte (4mb actual tx utility))
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 1.2 = 1.98125(48000tx at 10sat/byte (12mb actual tx utility))
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 1.6 = 1.990625(64000tx at 10sat/byte (16mb actual tx utility))
as you can see the amount of coin available per block to pay miners can still go up(via fee's)
and this does not need people to "pay more" individually. which would shy away alot of people from using it.
instead it would be more people, collectively pay
also factor in a variable of if bitcoin prices were to go up by 2x and tx count was to 2x
now reward 6.25 fee 0.1 = 6.35= $254k (btc=$40k)
2024 Reward 3.125 fee 0.2 = 3.325= $266k (btc=$80k)
2028 Reward 1.5625 fee 0.4 = 1.9625= $314k (btc=$160k)
2032 Reward 0.78125 fee 0.8 = 1.58125= $506k (btc=$320k)
2036 Reward 0.390625 fee 1.6 = 1.990625= $1274k (btc=$640k)
as you can see there are alot more variables that can keep miners interested. not just fee's but also the bitcoin price.
aswell as how even if some technical limit stops how small an asic chip can get vs watts/thash
people can still just multiply the number of physical mining rigs / locations
or if there was a location limit to power. more people can mine in more locations for a slice of the $1.174m compared to a slice of a $254k
Sounds to me like Bitcoin is going to require the world to step it up with more alternative energy and new technologies. A large chunk of the earth is still using technology from 100 years ago to power their grids. Even the US is still burning coal. It's actually ridiculous. It's only a matter of time before nuclear or fusion power is more widely adopted. I also expect to see mining become much more energy efficient now that companies like Intel are set to take the reigns from less established, wealthy, and experienced companies like Bitmain. So while I would argue that PoW is likely heading towards a dead end due to the massive price increase that would be required to maintain profitability as the block reward continues to be cut, I don't think the dead end will be electrical usage. Governments have too much control of the electricity grid to allow their citizens to live in the dark ages so others can mine crypto.
It's impossible to 'ban forks' because they're not something you deliberately 'make', but something that emerges in a decentralized blockchain inherently.
I get it , if you have studied the old tech that PoW coins uses, that ending forking is impossible.
But newer tech has greater possibilities.
The PoS design of Algorand makes forks impossible and that is according to
Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner. *Turing Award, often referred to as the “Nobel Prize of Computing*
https://community.algorand.org/blog/forks-and-scaling-challenges-how-the-algorand-overcomes-both/
Quote
First, the Algorand blockchain overcomes one significant problem that has been observed with any chain that becomes popular, a hard fork.
As Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner and founder at Algorand explained in a blog post:
“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”
Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.
So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer
As Silvio Micali, a Turing award winner and founder at Algorand explained in a blog post:
“The Algorand blockchain does not fork. Each new block is separately agreed upon and is guaranteed to remain on the Algorand chain forever.
The Algorand consensus is not a drawn-out process. The fact that more and more blocks are attached to a given block B does not make it more and more probable that consensus on B has been reached. Algorand separately reaches agreement on a new block. When this is done, it reaches agreement on the next block. And so on.”
Thus, its users can immediately rely on the transactions as soon as they appear in a new block without having to wait for the block to become sufficiently deep in the chain.
So instead of haggling with clients over an unconfirmed funds transfer (as may be the case with Bitcoin), a merchant accepting tokens that are underpinned by the Algorand blockchain is assured of the finality of the transfer
Interesting to know that algorand gives a more secure transaction at a almost instant speed while not needing to compromise the majority % of the power grid like bitcoin.
The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown
This is a very good point. It's also worth mentioning the halvings; meaning not only are ASIC improvements going to hit a certain performance wall, also the rewards will get lower, pushing down the amount of miners running. So effectively, the power consumption will always be bound to price/coin and coins/block.What I also don't get @OP: what's your issue of high energy usage if the miners often generate their own and / or buy it from renewable sources? ASIC development and operation literally pushes for higher efficiency chips and manufacturing nodes as well as construction of new renewable energy plants (on- or off-grid).
You think there will be a technically limit how fast to solve the SHA 256 function. Dont believe so.
Guys!! This man found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics! Yup, he goes faster than lightspeeeeed!Wait, then what's the topic? I thought Bitcoin PoW is dead because it consumes too much energy (which is bad... because of the environment?
you didn't specify). Franky has a point: if this would 'kill' Bitcoin, it should have killed gold a long time ago, right?Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.
This doesn't make much sense. If it's implementing a blockchain, it's doomed to have forks one way or another. Not allowing them sounds vague.
topic creator must know by now his numbers are off by alot
having 200TWH usage estimate means in 2021 the hashrate must have been at a constant 229exahash for the whole a year, and all of the asics mining it were all the s9 at 14thash for 1.4kw/h
sorry but the numbers used in the guestimate are far far far off.
which has lead the topic creator to then go full exponential rather than actually make better judgements
for instance
if he bothered to use each gen asic at each year where majority are presumed running the network
he might have seen something more like this
instead of the inflated fudged numbers from a website that has many social/political reasons to inflate number
and extrapolate from that, the curves of scale to make predictions of better multiples for future years. he might have a better idea of the future. (hint: its not 13x or 6x(1300% 600%))
for instance the 2009-2011-2012-2013 shows high multiplication growth. then it calms down.
the hashrate difference between 2013-2015 and 2015-2017 and 2017-2019 and 2019-2021
shows the multiplication declines per step
meaning its an S curve(in a linear view) and an r curve(in log view)... not an exponential curve to infinity
what he needs to realise. is even if there was a electricity cap of say 1% of world usage
this does not become a security risk. because ... guess what
it would cost a malicious person to have (51%+ of that 1%) about 138TWH+ to be malicious, just to try to do empty blocks or re-orgs to double spend
world power 27000 at 1% is 270TWH and 51% is 137.7TWH
where by lets say some american entity was to be malicious. they would need to take up more then 1% of americans full capacity.
or over 3.35x of america's allowed allotment for all bitcoin industry
america full capacity is 4100TWH so 1% is 41 and 3.35x is 137.35
so basing on an S curve where power right now is more like 40TWH not 200TWH
at a yearly power usage of (1.07x)7% would still not be 200THW in 2037
yet by 2037 280million US cars will need to be EV rather then fossil fuelled
and at a 2500KWH per car(8000miles driving a year)
700TWH to electrify all cars in 15 years
making cars the higher electric demand compared to bitcoin
so are cars going to a deadend?
having 200TWH usage estimate means in 2021 the hashrate must have been at a constant 229exahash for the whole a year, and all of the asics mining it were all the s9 at 14thash for 1.4kw/h
sorry but the numbers used in the guestimate are far far far off.
which has lead the topic creator to then go full exponential rather than actually make better judgements
for instance
if he bothered to use each gen asic at each year where majority are presumed running the network
he might have seen something more like this
instead of the inflated fudged numbers from a website that has many social/political reasons to inflate number
and extrapolate from that, the curves of scale to make predictions of better multiples for future years. he might have a better idea of the future. (hint: its not 13x or 6x(1300% 600%))
for instance the 2009-2011-2012-2013 shows high multiplication growth. then it calms down.
the hashrate difference between 2013-2015 and 2015-2017 and 2017-2019 and 2019-2021
shows the multiplication declines per step
meaning its an S curve(in a linear view) and an r curve(in log view)... not an exponential curve to infinity
what he needs to realise. is even if there was a electricity cap of say 1% of world usage
this does not become a security risk. because ... guess what
it would cost a malicious person to have (51%+ of that 1%) about 138TWH+ to be malicious, just to try to do empty blocks or re-orgs to double spend
world power 27000 at 1% is 270TWH and 51% is 137.7TWH
where by lets say some american entity was to be malicious. they would need to take up more then 1% of americans full capacity.
or over 3.35x of america's allowed allotment for all bitcoin industry
america full capacity is 4100TWH so 1% is 41 and 3.35x is 137.35
so basing on an S curve where power right now is more like 40TWH not 200TWH
at a yearly power usage of (1.07x)7% would still not be 200THW in 2037
yet by 2037 280million US cars will need to be EV rather then fossil fuelled
and at a 2500KWH per car(8000miles driving a year)
700TWH to electrify all cars in 15 years
making cars the higher electric demand compared to bitcoin
so are cars going to a deadend?
I already reported to the mods to lock this topic.
Don't ruin it, let us reach to a conclusion. These reports have made lots stay in altcoins as they're constantly kicked out from the Bitcoin community. Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.
This doesn't make much sense. If it's implementing a blockchain, it's doomed to have forks one way or another. Not allowing them sounds vague.Let's start reading the article.
Quote
With proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, in which users solve crypto puzzles, there is a chance that two users could solve for a valid block at the same time. When two nodes get a valid block simultaneously, the blockchain forks into two because different groups of users may see different candidates for the next block. A fork may persist for a while, and its branches may even be elongated by the addition of new blocks. But eventually, all branches but one (the longest) will die , and all the blocks in the dead branches will disappear. The transactions on the dead branches are considered invalid; they basically never happened.
That's true.Quote
Similarly, an adversary could partition the network, convincing different groups of users to accept different blocks at the same height in the blockchain. As a result, contradicting transactions will be accepted by different users, causing a fork in the chain. This allows the adversary to double-spend their money.
There's a big IF lying in here.Let's assume that the adversary is a miner. In order to trick the rest and double-spend their money, they have to mine at least two blocks of the same height, one (A) that includes their transaction and another (B) that doesn't. So, some nodes have block A and some have block B. The miner now solves block C on top of block B. Now, block A is dumped from all nodes as it doesn't follow the longest chain.
There's not a point for a miner to solve both A and B, and then C on top of B. They can try to reverse the previous block by building two blocks on top of the one before that. They'll have essentially reversed their transaction by solving two blocks instead of three.
Back to the if. This can happen IF a miner controls a high percentage of the network. Furthermore, the more blocks the users wait, the more the chances to accomplish such attack drop exponentially.
Quote
Forks are an unwelcome source of uncertainty and delay.
Sure. The Byzantine generals have had uncertainty at first. Blockchains are known for being the least effective databases.Quote
This is because a branch may overcome the current chain and your block may end up in a dead branch and disappear. Before considering yourself paid, you would need to wait for a sequence of blocks to be added to yours, so as to minimize the chance that the block containing your payment will end up on a dead branch.
Correct.Quote
Some people recommend waiting for six blocks to be added after yours to be confident that your block will remain on the chain
That's excessive, the chain had never reorged more than 1 block. I'd say that 3 blocks are fine in both speed and security. Even someone who owns one fifth of the hash rate has ~10.32% chances to successfully reverse transaction(s) 3 blocks deep. If you're going to move millions, I don't think that's much of a concern. And then, it doesn't explain how does Algorand avoid this weakness. It just repeats that it does.
See it yourself:
Quote
In contrast, the Algorand blockchain never forks.
Quote
Two blocks can never be added to the chain at once because only one block can have the required threshold of committee votes.
Quote
At most, one block is certified and written to the chain in a given round.
Quote
Accordingly, all transactions are final in Algorand.
Quote
When the consensus protocol decides on a block, this decision is never changed.
Quote
Every honest user soon learns of this decision, and no honest user ever thinks that a different block at the same height was chosen.
Quote
Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately and they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain, which means the money they receive is safe.
Quote
And in the event of a network partition in Algorand, the adversary is never able to convince two honest users to accept two different blocks for the same round.
Quote
This is true even when the partition may last for an indefinite amount of time and nobody knows when it will be resolved.
Quote
Algorand’s chain never forks and users’ balances remain secure.
see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.
This is half-true or maybe even false. The system protects you from double-spending as long as the ones who own the most of the money supply sign their blocks honestly. The system cannot ensure those few won't double-sign for the given block. We've already explained that it's designed to centralize overtime anyways:Actually Algorand does not allow any forking, so double spends are impossible.
So you may want to research the newer tech before denying it's possibilities.
https://www.algorand.com/technology/immediate-transaction-finality
Quote
Algorand’s Immediate Transaction Finality
With proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, in which users solve crypto puzzles, there is a chance that two users could solve for a valid block at the same time. When two nodes get a valid block simultaneously, the blockchain forks into two because different groups of users may see different candidates for the next block. A fork may persist for a while, and its branches may even be elongated by the addition of new blocks. But eventually, all branches but one (the longest) will die , and all the blocks in the dead branches will disappear. The transactions on the dead branches are considered invalid; they basically never happened.
Similarly, an adversary could partition the network, convincing different groups of users to accept different blocks at the same height in the blockchain. As a result, contradicting transactions will be accepted by different users, causing a fork in the chain. This allows the adversary to double-spend their money.
Forks are an unwelcome source of uncertainty and delay. If a payment made to you appears in the latest block added to the chain, you cannot immediately consider yourself paid. This is because a branch may overcome the current chain and your block may end up in a dead branch and disappear. Before considering yourself paid, you would need to wait for a sequence of blocks to be added to yours, so as to minimize the chance that the block containing your payment will end up on a dead branch. Some people recommend waiting for six blocks to be added after yours to be confident that your block will remain on the chain; others recommend an even longer wait if the payment made to you is sizable. So rather than waiting ten minutes (Bitcoin’s transaction time) to have reasonable confidence in the finality of a transaction, in reality you have to wait hours.
In contrast, the Algorand blockchain never forks. Two blocks can never be added to the chain at once because only one block can have the required threshold of committee votes. At most, one block is certified and written to the chain in a given round. Accordingly, all transactions are final in Algorand. When the consensus protocol decides on a block, this decision is never changed. Every honest user soon learns of this decision, and no honest user ever thinks that a different block at the same height was chosen. Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately and they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain, which means the money they receive is safe.
And in the event of a network partition in Algorand, the adversary is never able to convince two honest users to accept two different blocks for the same round. This is true even when the partition may last for an indefinite amount of time and nobody knows when it will be resolved. Algorand’s chain never forks and users’ balances remain secure.
With proof-of-work protocols like Bitcoin, in which users solve crypto puzzles, there is a chance that two users could solve for a valid block at the same time. When two nodes get a valid block simultaneously, the blockchain forks into two because different groups of users may see different candidates for the next block. A fork may persist for a while, and its branches may even be elongated by the addition of new blocks. But eventually, all branches but one (the longest) will die , and all the blocks in the dead branches will disappear. The transactions on the dead branches are considered invalid; they basically never happened.
Similarly, an adversary could partition the network, convincing different groups of users to accept different blocks at the same height in the blockchain. As a result, contradicting transactions will be accepted by different users, causing a fork in the chain. This allows the adversary to double-spend their money.
Forks are an unwelcome source of uncertainty and delay. If a payment made to you appears in the latest block added to the chain, you cannot immediately consider yourself paid. This is because a branch may overcome the current chain and your block may end up in a dead branch and disappear. Before considering yourself paid, you would need to wait for a sequence of blocks to be added to yours, so as to minimize the chance that the block containing your payment will end up on a dead branch. Some people recommend waiting for six blocks to be added after yours to be confident that your block will remain on the chain; others recommend an even longer wait if the payment made to you is sizable. So rather than waiting ten minutes (Bitcoin’s transaction time) to have reasonable confidence in the finality of a transaction, in reality you have to wait hours.
In contrast, the Algorand blockchain never forks. Two blocks can never be added to the chain at once because only one block can have the required threshold of committee votes. At most, one block is certified and written to the chain in a given round. Accordingly, all transactions are final in Algorand. When the consensus protocol decides on a block, this decision is never changed. Every honest user soon learns of this decision, and no honest user ever thinks that a different block at the same height was chosen. Once a block appears, users can rely on the transactions it contains immediately and they can be confident that the block will forever be part of the chain, which means the money they receive is safe.
And in the event of a network partition in Algorand, the adversary is never able to convince two honest users to accept two different blocks for the same round. This is true even when the partition may last for an indefinite amount of time and nobody knows when it will be resolved. Algorand’s chain never forks and users’ balances remain secure.
This topic was made by a someone who, either doesn’t understand that what makes the whole system stick together IS the Proof of Work. They merely read a few articles, and think they have discovered the “truth”. Or a troll. Read OP’s post. It’s undebatable nonsense.
I already reported to the mods to lock this topic.
I already reported to the mods to lock this topic.
see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.
This is half-true or maybe even false. The system protects you from double-spending as long as the ones who own the most of the money supply sign their blocks honestly. The system cannot ensure those few won't double-sign for the given block. We've already explained that it's designed to centralize overtime anyways:it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter.
The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.
PoW is moving toward a dead end. IMO.
No matter, where you lean on the energy usage, the government bans point to a problem that is being ignored by PoW developers.
Anyone studying the development of blockchains, see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.
Also all of the future development seems to be in the Proof of Stake blockchains,
Proof of Work development seems stagnated mainly due to the artificial limits imposed to keep users from needing to have modern computers for nodes.
No matter, where you lean on the energy usage, the government bans point to a problem that is being ignored by PoW developers.
Anyone studying the development of blockchains, see Proof of Stake designs achieve as low as a 4 second block speed with 100% protection from double spends.
Also all of the future development seems to be in the Proof of Stake blockchains,
Proof of Work development seems stagnated mainly due to the artificial limits imposed to keep users from needing to have modern computers for nodes.
The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
Oh, it indeed failed, yeah. BTW, thanks for mentioning the former, I hadn't thought of it. I am starting to think the only people who are really pushing POS are people who either don't want to deal with mining or really just want to pump their shitcoin / token for some reason.
99% of the crypto-market is a pump-scum situation with no essential contribution, truth be told. However, I'll have to disagree that these two are the only categories of people who promote PoS. There's a third: Those who haven't understood the weaknesses.It's attractive to solve the double-spending problem without real-world waste, isn't it?
In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.
Shrug, it's been said 10,000 times before 10,000 different ways. But we all have to keep saying it.
I am starting to think the only people who are really pushing POS are people who either don't want to deal with mining or really just want to pump their shitcoin / token for some reason.
POW is not going anywhere and the hash rate keeps going up as more and more miners come online.
The big people get the newer better more efficient ones and we keep buying the other stuff and it just keeps growing.
-Dave
Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.
This is an invalid argument. It's true, but so is in PoW too. It's obvious that those with more money can have greater share. This is not why PoS brings centralisation; it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter. The difference I was trying (and failed miserably at it) to point out is that unlike POS in order to get more votes you don't have to make the other guys rich by doing so nor do you have to force them to give you a share of it in a redistribution of wealth.
They will keep accumulating wealth (coins) while you're going to keep losing as you will never afford to put aside as much money as they do.
In POS you miraculously have to come up with those 100 billion votes, in POW a huge mining farm can be brought down by poeple hobby mining, each losing 1$ a day on electricity but making the guys behind Foundry bankrupt, in POS you can't do that.
And, now I wonder why I haven't said this in the first place.
As beginner I thought Hashrate and price has a function.
You mean a relation?Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.
This is an invalid argument. It's true, but so is in PoW too. It's obvious that those with more money can have greater share. This is not why PoS brings centralisation; it's because those who want to secure the network need those who are securing the network. In PoW, anyone's free to setup their hardware and start securing, but in PoS, it's down to those entities' judgment if new people can enter. You think there will be a technically limit how fast to solve the SHA 256 function. Dont believe so.
It's not a technical limit it's a physical limit.
Then there is the investment cost per amount of work done, this while decreasing during the previous years can't go to zero.
You can't have a 100 times faster computer that costs 100 times less, not in this life.
What I have learned in my years here in Crypto: As beginner I thought Hashrate and price has a function. But it has not because people speculate (see point 3)
Indeed it has.
The price of coins dictates the daily reward for miners, if the price goes down so does the reward, at one point miners will turn unprofitable and switch off. It's not the case now, even as we speak with this decline in prices you're still making profits with lower than 8c/kwh electricity, for an s19 is around and nobody mines with those prices.
Besides, there is a lot of gear on order that will be plugged in so things will evolve in different directions for a while because of a delay, but in the end, it will still keep the balance, even if the price would go to 300 million tomorrow there is simply no gear available to put in to match that rise, it will take years for it to be manufactured.
I dont believe POS makes more centralisation. You can run it with Pools same POW and when you get 4% ROI a year, the rich get not as far richer then with investing in estates.
POS comes with centralization.
The ones that have enough coins to stake will get more coins, the ones that afford to leave tons of money on stake without touching them are the ones who will get more coins to get more % in staking share. Simple as that!
Imagine voting based on the value of your assets, where Musk has 100 billion votes and 30 millions have zero since they only have debts.
The guy in your blog says its not invented. It IS invented already 
So why BTC does not copy paste to make a start
I'm sorry, but I don't make any sense. So why BTC does not copy paste to make a start
So what exactly is DASH, even when many say the current value of it its not good
We're talking about Bitcoin.So why BTC does not copy paste to make a start
If POS so easy go hack ADA and get at least 1% of the 25 Billion USD.
What's the point? What will I prove if I accumulate the 250 million dollars equivalent of ADA? Have you read the 7th paragraph of the article? You have to either sacrifice decentralization or consensus if it's a proof of stake mechanism. Since the former is not meant to, it's the latter. So what exactly is DASH, even when many say the current value of it its not good
We're talking about Bitcoin. Not only does it brings centralisation, but it can't even reach consensus.
So the "nothing to stake problem" and others are so often mentioned that it makes POS unsecure. If POS so easy go hack ADA and get at least 1% of the 25 Billion USD.And some more interesting part in your article: he favorites a combination of POW and POS/Proof of Service. So what exactly is DASH, even when many say the current value of it its not good
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
And same things were said prior the third halving; that in 2020, the difficulty would have risen so much, that the energy consumption would exceed an entire nation. Also, for such variations in consumption, the price must skyrocket every four years in an economically infeasible manner. I dont believe POS makes more centralisation.
Not only does it brings centralisation, but it can't even reach consensus. The matter of pollution has been discussed many times, and there's enough info online (including fact-checking services) that show it's not a real ecological threat, and, on top of it, it's all a matter of sources of electricity, which need to become cleaner, rather than of consumption. Now, regarding the dead end, I don't understand the argument. You mean it's a problem because energy consumption is rising? It's still far from the levels that pose a problem of the lack of electricity, not to mention that miners can choose to opt out, difficulty would decrease and so would consumption. Not to mention that your calculations don't match those of franky1, so providing sources with estimates would be nice.
1) So at first we talk of long term. I dont say its a problem tommorow to have the energy that is demanded by the rising energy consumtion2) When miners opt out and difficulity decreases, the network gets lower safety. Its a solve for the moment but dont solve the problem long term
3)accourding to sources: I can only look what has happend the last years and as always the Bitcoin maxis say: "Everything will continue the same as before .." like S2F and so on
The matter of pollution has been discussed many times, and there's enough info online (including fact-checking services) that show it's not a real ecological threat, and, on top of it, it's all a matter of sources of electricity, which need to become cleaner, rather than of consumption. Now, regarding the dead end, I don't understand the argument. You mean it's a problem because energy consumption is rising? It's still far from the levels that pose a problem of the lack of electricity, not to mention that miners can choose to opt out, difficulty would decrease and so would consumption. Not to mention that your calculations don't match those of franky1, so providing sources with estimates would be nice.
to add to this.
gold uses 100% dirty fuel (diesel for excavators and sluice machines)
at a cost of $900 per ounce
mining 97003000 ounces a year
= $87,302,700,000 of dirty energy spend
lets go with a low average rate of non renewable energy spend on bitcoin mining of 50%(its between 10%-35% dirty, but lets highball it)
well it costs about $183,746.45 an hour in electric at $0.04/hwh
=$1,609,618,902
so thats $800m bitcoin dirty spend vs $87bill gold dirty spend
gold mining is 109x more dirty than even a conservative estimate of mining bitcoin.(more like 150x-500x)
but do you hear environmentalists complain about the fumes from diesel excavators as they rip up land and dig holes in the environment 109x louder than they shout about bitcoin?
sorry off topic :-) gold uses 100% dirty fuel (diesel for excavators and sluice machines)
at a cost of $900 per ounce
mining 97003000 ounces a year
= $87,302,700,000 of dirty energy spend
lets go with a low average rate of non renewable energy spend on bitcoin mining of 50%(its between 10%-35% dirty, but lets highball it)
well it costs about $183,746.45 an hour in electric at $0.04/hwh
=$1,609,618,902
so thats $800m bitcoin dirty spend vs $87bill gold dirty spend
gold mining is 109x more dirty than even a conservative estimate of mining bitcoin.(more like 150x-500x)
but do you hear environmentalists complain about the fumes from diesel excavators as they rip up land and dig holes in the environment 109x louder than they shout about bitcoin?
POS is a shit way of running your blockchain and it moves against the most important factor of a legitimate cryptocurrency and that is decentralization. So where's that leave us? With POW. The energy consumption is way overblown. I'm not saying it's not an issues, but it's overblown and much of it has been debunked. Also, you provide a bunch of conjecture here, instead of concrete facts to show that POW is truly moving towards a dead end. I will take the word of cypherpunks and they largely agree POW is the best solution right now.
I dont believe POS makes more centralisation. You can run it with Pools same POW and when you get 4% ROI a year, the rich get not as far richer then with investing in estates.
There is a limit on the efficiency of those machines, just like with every other chip we have right now, it can't go and double efficiency every year, pretty soon it won't be happening even every 4 years, the S7 was using 28nm chips, the S19 7nm, there is a limit to how much you can get out of it.
If the profitability of mining is in a lower one-digit number there will also be no more gear sales as the difference in efficiency will not be able to make the difference from the cost of a new gear ordered, thus lowering both the demand and incentive to develop new miners.
What I have learned in my years here in Crypto: As beginner I thought Hashrate and price has a function. But it has not because people speculate (see point 3) the actual hashrate for the year is 155exa(155477763.7thash) average
Yesterday it was 202 exa so 30% more then you stated.so its actually 40TWH not 200
thus not even a 3x in the last 5 years
Even if thats true it does only prolong the problem and doesnt solve itthus not even a 3x in the last 5 years
but as you can see ASIC efficiency has changed in 5 years to be 3x more efficient
Thats exactly what I told about new maschines lowering the network safety when the whole network keeps the same energy consumtion
to add to this.
gold uses 100% dirty fuel (diesel for excavators and sluice machines)
at a cost of $900 per ounce
mining 97003000 ounces a year
= $87,302,700,000 of dirty energy spend
lets go with a low average rate of non renewable energy spend on bitcoin mining of 50%(its between 10%-35% dirty, but lets highball it)
well it costs about $183,746.45 an hour in electric at $0.04/hwh
=$1,609,618,902
so thats $800m bitcoin dirty spend vs $87bill gold dirty spend
gold mining is 109x more dirty than even a conservative estimate of mining bitcoin.(more like 150x-500x)
but do you hear environmentalists complain about the fumes from diesel excavators as they rip up land and dig holes in the environment 109x louder than they shout about bitcoin?
gold uses 100% dirty fuel (diesel for excavators and sluice machines)
at a cost of $900 per ounce
mining 97003000 ounces a year
= $87,302,700,000 of dirty energy spend
lets go with a low average rate of non renewable energy spend on bitcoin mining of 50%(its between 10%-35% dirty, but lets highball it)
well it costs about $183,746.45 an hour in electric at $0.04/hwh
=$1,609,618,902
so thats $800m bitcoin dirty spend vs $87bill gold dirty spend
gold mining is 109x more dirty than even a conservative estimate of mining bitcoin.(more like 150x-500x)
but do you hear environmentalists complain about the fumes from diesel excavators as they rip up land and dig holes in the environment 109x louder than they shout about bitcoin?
2) Different companys for example Bitmain invent always new ASIC Miner which will make more hashrate with lower energy consumption
That's wrong with your whole scenario.
There is a limit on the efficiency of those machines, just like with every other chip we have right now, it can't go and double efficiency every year, pretty soon it won't be happening even every 4 years, the S7 was using 28nm chips, the S19 7nm, there is a limit to how much you can get out of it.
Moore's law is dead and buried and has already been exorcised after turning in a ghost.
Quote
If the energy consumtion keeps constant, the network safety will be lower with every "new Antminer" (see 2)
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
The energy consumption has grown because the reward has grown, miners shave more money as income they can afford to spend more as the cost to get a larger share of that. If the price will stay the same for a year, once the new gear that was ordered is finally delivered and the revenue per TH goes down the drain you will see no spike in consumption.
If the profitability of mining is in a lower one-digit number there will also be no more gear sales as the difference in efficiency will not be able to make the difference from the cost of a new gear ordered, thus lowering both the demand and incentive to develop new miners.
Revenue per TH/s is around 16 cents right now, just like 3 years ago when Bitmain was launching the S17, but the S17 was 2200$ with 56TH, the S19 is 10k for 104TH. Exponential growth can't happen!
POS is a shit way of running your blockchain and it moves against the most important factor of a legitimate cryptocurrency and that is decentralization. So where's that leave us? With POW. The energy consumption is way overblown. I'm not saying it's not an issues, but it's overblown and much of it has been debunked. Also, you provide a bunch of conjecture here, instead of concrete facts to show that POW is truly moving towards a dead end. I will take the word of cypherpunks and they largely agree POW is the best solution right now.
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Waiting for your replies
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Waiting for your replies
REALLY?!
hmmm
lets just see about that
the actual hashrate for the year is 155exa(155477763.7thash) average
using the current gen asics of 110thash at 3.25kwh
is 1,413,434.215 asics
using 4,593,661.199KW per hour(4.6gw/h)
110gw/day = 40,296GW/y
so its actually 40TWH not 200
thus not even a 3x in the last 5 years
heck if the network was still using the 14thash asics of 2017 generation at 1.4kwh
is 11,105,554.55 asics
using 15,547,776.37KW per hour (15.5gw/h)
373gw/day=136,198GW/y
so even that is actually 136THW not 200
the 200 number is a far off fabrication by itself.
but as you can see ASIC efficiency has changed in 5 years to be 3x more efficient
How do you suggest this problem is fixed? Bitcoin has been, and will always be proof of work, meaning that no matter how much public outcry happens, BTC will stay proof of work.
Hey guys,
in this post I wanna assume why apart from the pollution Bitcoin POW is moving into an dead end.
For the first I wanna determine several things:
1) Important for Bitcoins safety the Hashrate or difficulty is only a moment view. In general the safety depends on the global energie use because
2) Different companys for example Bitmain invent always new ASIC Miner which will make more hashrate with lower energy consumption
3) its human behaviour to be greedy. You wanna have always more then you owe
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Lets be conservative and say its only factor 6 and 100 Twh
When we assume that This gives us the following information:
If the energy consumtion keeps constant, the network safety will be lower with every "new Antminer" (see 2)
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
To compare: the actual energy comsumtion of whole US is 4000 Twh, of China is about 7000 Twh
So even if there is new energy like fusion power, you really think its possible to serve so much energy
And if energy problem is totally solved and energy is for free, which sense makes POW safety depending on used energy
Waiting for your replies
in this post I wanna assume why apart from the pollution Bitcoin POW is moving into an dead end.
For the first I wanna determine several things:
1) Important for Bitcoins safety the Hashrate or difficulty is only a moment view. In general the safety depends on the global energie use because
2) Different companys for example Bitmain invent always new ASIC Miner which will make more hashrate with lower energy consumption
3) its human behaviour to be greedy. You wanna have always more then you owe
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Lets be conservative and say its only factor 6 and 100 Twh
When we assume that This gives us the following information:
If the energy consumtion keeps constant, the network safety will be lower with every "new Antminer" (see 2)
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
To compare: the actual energy comsumtion of whole US is 4000 Twh, of China is about 7000 Twh
So even if there is new energy like fusion power, you really think its possible to serve so much energy
And if energy problem is totally solved and energy is for free, which sense makes POW safety depending on used energy
Waiting for your replies
How do you suggest this problem is fixed? Bitcoin has been, and will always be proof of work, meaning that no matter how much public outcry happens, BTC will stay proof of work.
Hey guys,
in this post I wanna assume why apart from the pollution Bitcoin POW is moving into an dead end.
For the first I wanna determine several things:
1) Important for Bitcoins safety the Hashrate or difficulty is only a moment view. In general the safety depends on the global energie use because
2) Different companys for example Bitmain invent always new ASIC Miner which will make more hashrate with lower energy consumption
3) its human behaviour to be greedy. You wanna have always more then you owe
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Lets be conservative and say its only factor 6 and 100 Twh
When we assume that This gives us the following information:
If the energy consumtion keeps constant, the network safety will be lower with every "new Antminer" (see 2)
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
To compare: the actual energy comsumtion of whole US is 4000 Twh, of China is about 7000 Twh
So even if there is new energy like fusion power, you really think its possible to serve so much energy
And if energy problem is totally solved and energy is for free, which sense makes POW safety depending on used energy
Waiting for your replies
in this post I wanna assume why apart from the pollution Bitcoin POW is moving into an dead end.
For the first I wanna determine several things:
1) Important for Bitcoins safety the Hashrate or difficulty is only a moment view. In general the safety depends on the global energie use because
2) Different companys for example Bitmain invent always new ASIC Miner which will make more hashrate with lower energy consumption
3) its human behaviour to be greedy. You wanna have always more then you owe
4) Bitcoin energy consumtion has rised approximatly from 15 Twh 7/2017 to 200 Twh 1/2022 which is factor 13 dependig on
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption/.
Lets be conservative and say its only factor 6 and 100 Twh
When we assume that This gives us the following information:
If the energy consumtion keeps constant, the network safety will be lower with every "new Antminer" (see 2)
Dependig on 4 the Bitcoin energy consumtion would be 600 Twh in 2027, 3600 Twh in 2032 and 21600 Twh in 2037
To compare: the actual energy comsumtion of whole US is 4000 Twh, of China is about 7000 Twh
So even if there is new energy like fusion power, you really think its possible to serve so much energy
And if energy problem is totally solved and energy is for free, which sense makes POW safety depending on used energy
Waiting for your replies
Jump to: