Will ASICs become obsolete in the future?

[Abiky]

Most people seem to be criticizing the environmental impact of PoW-based cryptocurrencies in the mainstream world. For long, ASICs have been responsible of securing the main Bitcoin blockchain at a cost of high energy consumption. While ASIC hardware improved over time (becoming more energy-efficient), they are still power-hungry compared to other mining hardware. This has prompted Ethereum to switch towards a much more self-sustainable consensus algorithm dubbed "Proof of Stake". Bitcoin is still a PoW coin, subject to the negative effects of ASICs on the environment. If it decides to remain a PoW cryptocurrency forever, some improvements need to be made (either from hardware manufacturers themselves or Bitcoin Core developers). Otherwise, ASIC hardware might become obsolete in the future as PoS cryptocurrencies dominate the market.

What are your thoughts? Do you think ASIC mining will become obsolete in the future? Will other types of hardware replace ASICs in the long term? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Seriously?

Not going to happen. The clickbait phrase,"subject to the negative effects of ASICs on the environment" is a very relative thing. Their power consumption is just the cost of doing business. When compared to other usages of power, crypto mining is not too bad.

Fun Fact: There are multiple studies of power usage by various things dealing with the Internet that include crypto mining as a usage case. In all of them the winner of #1 power usage by far goes to <drumroll please>: Video streaming. Of that service, most studies put 75% or more as porn...

[philipma1957]

Most people seem to be criticizing the environmental impact of PoW-based cryptocurrencies in the mainstream world. For long, ASICs have been responsible of securing the main Bitcoin blockchain at a cost of high energy consumption. While ASIC hardware improved over time (becoming more energy-efficient), they are still power-hungry compared to other mining hardware. This has prompted Ethereum to switch towards a much more self-sustainable consensus algorithm dubbed "Proof of Stake". Bitcoin is still a PoW coin, subject to the negative effects of ASICs on the environment. If it decides to remain a PoW cryptocurrency forever, some improvements need to be made (either from hardware manufacturers themselves or Bitcoin Core developers). Otherwise, ASIC hardware might become obsolete in the future as PoS cryptocurrencies dominate the market.

What are your thoughts? Do you think ASIC mining will become obsolete in the future? Will other types of hardware replace ASICs in the long term? Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thank you

pos = piece of shit or as you say proof of stake.

only mentally people buy pos coins. ie complusive gamblers are mentally ill and buying pos over pow is an act of complusive gambling in 85 % of the cases.

mind you it is the internet and writing the explanation takes too long.

but you are simply buying a bond when you buy a pos coin.

btw eth is not pos it is pow until it is no longer pow.

why buy unregulated bonds ie pos coins

when you can buy regulated bonds.

my position on pos coins is every country in the world should out law them.

i hope you the op are simply a scammer trying to push pos scams and not a poor fool that believes they have value.

[cabron]

This issue had been the fud for BTC over and over like the heat it produces will boil the ocean because it contributes to global warming. We don't buy that already.

Bitcoin is more environmentally friendly than mining Gold and minerals to counter that argument. Thanks to Bitcoin we don't have to ruin mountains and bore massive holes into the ground to extract minerals there and make money. That's how Bitcoin changes the world.

[mikeywith]

Nearly all shapes and forms of civilization have a negative environmental impact, based on that logic we should just get rid of everything around us and live like our ancestors, it's either that or we stop cherry-picking shit.

If we ignore the environmental drama and focus on the economy, in a place where capitalism rules everything, mining bitcoin is a great addition to any economy, It creates jobs
and incentives us to find cheaper methods to generate power.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Fun Fact: There are multiple studies of power usage by various things dealing with the Internet that include crypto mining as a usage case. In all of them the winner of #1 power usage by far goes to <drumroll please>: Video streaming. Of that service, most studies put 75% or more as porn...

Though you didn't cite any sources, I happen to believe you about that.  There's probably been more electricity spent on facilitating self-abuse since the beginning of the internet than all the crypto mining farms put together from here to eternity.  Nobody seems to be complaining one bit about that, right?

why buy unregulated bonds ie pos coins

when you can buy regulated bonds.

Man, I respect you greatly but I have to confess I have no idea what your argument is against PoS coins and why you think they're so bad.  I happen to be a fan of them (some of them at least), so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. 

[mikeywith]

I have no idea what your argument is against PoS coins and why you think they're so bad.  I happen to be a fan of them (some of them at least), so we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  

I know the question is pointed to phill but I think many of us who dislike POS share some basic ground, my main issue with POS coins is the convenience of centralization, we have to agree that almost everything can be centralized if enough money is thrown at it, but it all boils down to "how easy" you can achieve that.

If we take bitcoin current hashrate and see how someone who is super rich and wants to have control over it, it's not feasible, it is going to take more than just money to acquire say 50% of the hashrate, and most importantly, you can't do it without everyone and their grandmother knows about it, as it stands right now, it's not even possible to control 10% of the hashrate without the whole world knowing who you are.

in POS, the level of convenience towards centralization is mainly based on the market cap of that coin, someone who has enough money can take control over the coin in a few seconds, POS as the name suggests is pure proof of wealth, the more money you have the more control you have, while this is partially true for POW coins too, as explained above it's a lot less convenient to attack or control POW coins.

Another issue with POS is that you can be on multiple blockchains, this creates a major consensus problem which POW solves by default because to be on one chain you need the power and the gears for that, to be on another you need 'different' power and gears.

The last major issue is the acquisition of the "power", if someone has 50% of the supply and refuses to sell, the community can't compete against them since coins can't be created out of thin air, and the fresh supply won't change the percentage, on POW, however, it's extremely difficult for a single entity to own half of the hashrate, and even if that was the case, the ability to take back the power from them is there.

With that being said, POS does have some advantages over POW, I believe both protocols serve different purposes.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Bitcoin is still a PoW coin, subject to the negative effects of ASICs on the environment. If it decides to remain a PoW cryptocurrency forever, some improvements need to be made (either from hardware manufacturers themselves or Bitcoin Core developers).

You're comparing Bitcoin, the king of decentralization, with Ethereum which is mainly influenced and “improved” by the developing team regularly. As far as I read, their team doesn't focus on consensus. Switching from PoW to PoS is a much more greater change in contract with the block size (for example).  IMO, that's a sample of centralization.

There will be improvements, but not in the protocol. That wouldn't mean consensus.

As for the title's question, no. I don't believe that they'll become obsolete. I feel safe knowing that someone would need much more than just having the majority of the system's units to damage the network.

The last major issue is the acquisition of the "power", if someone has 50% of the supply and refuses to sell, the community can't compete against them since coins can't be created out of thin air, and the fresh supply won't change the percentage, on POW, however, it's extremely difficult for a single entity to own half of the hashrate, and even if that was the case, the ability to take back the from them is there.

That!

[Abiky]

I know the question is pointed to phill but I think many of us who dislike POS share some basic ground, my main issue with POS coins is the convenience of centralization, we have to agree that almost everything can be centralized if enough money is thrown at it, but it all boils down to "how easy" you can achieve that.

If we take bitcoin current hashrate and see how someone who is super rich and wants to have control over it, it's not feasible, it is going to take more than just money to acquire say 50% of the hashrate, and most importantly, you can't do it without everyone and their grandmother knows about it, as it stands right now, it's not even possible to control 10% of the hashrate without the whole world knowing who you are.

in POS, the level of convenience towards centralization is mainly based on the market cap of that coin, someone who has enough money can take control over the coin in a few seconds, POS as the name suggests is pure proof of wealth, the more money you have the more control you have, while this is partially true for POW coins too, as explained above it's a lot less convenient to attack or control POW coins.

Another issue with POS is that you can be on multiple blockchains, this creates a major consensus problem which POW solves by default because to be on one chain you need the power and the gears for that, to be on another you need 'different' power and gears.

The last major issue is the acquisition of the "power", if someone has 50% of the supply and refuses to sell, the community can't compete against them since coins can't be created out of thin air, and the fresh supply won't change the percentage, on POW, however, it's extremely difficult for a single entity to own half of the hashrate, and even if that was the case, the ability to take back the from them is there.

With that being said, POS does have some advantages over POW, I believe both protocols serve different purposes.

Each consensus algorithms has its respective advantages/disadvantages. In other words, no system is perfect. Despite PoW's high energy consumption, it's the most decentralized consensus algorithm to date. PoS is all of the contrary of PoW, being environmentally-friendly but with added centralization. As much as I love making profit with PoS coins, I don't think they'll stand the test of time. Consider what happened with Steem when Justin Sun wanted to take over the network. Big exchanges like Binance and Huobi played Justin's game with user's holdings. This made STEEM utterly centralized as such exchanges decided the network's future, while the rest of the people were left behind. That wouldn't be possible with a PoW coin like Bitcoin, since you'd need to acquire at least 51% of the hashrate to dominate the network. The larger the hashrate, the more expensive it becomes to achieve this task. It's why I believe that a hybrid PoW/PoS consensus algorithm would be a perfect balance between decentralization and energy-efficiency. Bitcoin would've been a lot better if it was a hybrid coin.

Nonetheless, it seems to me that ASICs will be here to stay for a long time. They will constantly improve as long as mining hardware manufacturers exist. Bitmain is still the biggest player in the ASIC mining industry, so the trend will last for a very long time. Energy-efficiency or not, Bitcoin works as intended being a decentralized and censorship-resistant cryptocurrency for the enjoyment of all. And that's what truly matters. Just my thoughts

[kano]

The 51% PoW argument saying someone can take control of the Bitcoin network is, to some extent, irrelevant also.

e.g. if that '51%' was to put invalid transactions in their blocks, they would simply fork away from the rest of the network and become yet another altcoin/scamcoin/bitchcoin with whatever name they wanted to call it.

The remaining 49% would still be mining on Bitcoin.

As for trying to overrun the network with their own choice of transactions, well while that may be possible, it would also mean they'd lose a lot of blocks while they tried to do it, since not every attempt would succeed, and each successful attempt will not lock them in to any permanent control.

The Bitcoin network itself is large enough to be pretty resistant to any such attacks.

[Abiky]

The 51% PoW argument saying someone can take control of the Bitcoin network is, to some extent, irrelevant also.

e.g. if that '51%' was to put invalid transactions in their blocks, they would simply fork away from the rest of the network and become yet another altcoin/scamcoin/bitchcoin with whatever name they wanted to call it.

The remaining 49% would still be mining on Bitcoin.

As for trying to overrun the network with their own choice of transactions, well while that may be possible, it would also mean they'd lose a lot of blocks while they tried to do it, since not every attempt would succeed, and each successful attempt will not lock them in to any permanent control.

The Bitcoin network itself is large enough to be pretty resistant to any such attacks.

Bitcoin may be able to withstand any attacks, but it consumes a lot of energy compared with other blockchain networks. There's a reason why Ethereum will switch from PoW to PoS. More coins could follow if high energy consumption becomes a huge concern among companies, businesses, and individuals alike. Some say that DOGE will switch from PoW to PoS in the future. With Elon Musk stating his support towards the continued development of the Dogecoin project, anything could happen.

As far as ASICs are concerned, I think they'll improve over time until energy consumption is reduced to a minimum. If that happens, Bitcoin will become greener for the good of the environment. We've seen from time to time how new ASIC models are much more energy-efficient than previous ones. Bitmain's ASIC machines are a true winner in this regard. Rest assured that if ASICs become obsolete, another technology will take the mining world by storm. This happened with FPGAs sometime ago when ASICs replaced them in their entirety. As long as Bitcoin remains decentralized, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts

[NotFuzzyWarm]

As far as ASICs are concerned, I think they'll improve over time until energy consumption is reduced to a minimum.

The 5nm node used by Bitmain's S19's is already about as efficient as is possible using silicon chips. In a few more years when 3nm becomes a viable process there will be very little improvement in power efficiency because shrinking gate size has long been a game of diminishing (power) returns since the 16nm node.

Throw in the fact that as gate size shrinks and reduces the power used per logic element, miner manufacturers just put more logic cores into the chips and more chips into the miners to keep power usage around 3kw or more. Yes it gives faster hash rate per machine but users just get more of the better miners to keep their total power usage the same while increasing their hash rate -- they do NOT aim to keep same hash rate for less power  

[kano]

...
With Elon Musk stating his support towards the continued development of the Dogecoin project, anything could happen.
...

Elon Musk is a troll trying to make money out of Bitcoin by telling ignorant fools a distorted version of what everyone else already knew.
You are best to ignore him.

[Abiky]

The 5nm node used by Bitmain's S19's is already about as efficient as is possible using silicon chips. In a few more years when 3nm becomes a viable process there will be very little improvement in power efficiency because shrinking gate size has long been a game of diminishing (power) returns since the 16nm node.

Throw in the fact that as gate size shrinks and reduces the power used per logic element, miner manufacturers just put more logic cores into the chips and more chips into the miners to keep power usage around 3kw or more. Yes it gives faster hash rate per machine but users just get more of the better miners to keep their total power usage the same while increasing their hash rate -- they do NOT aim to keep same hash rate for less power 

Good to know. Since the manufacturer aims to keep the same hashrate for less power, the only viable solution to Bitcoin's energy problem would be to run miners using renewable energy sources. ASIC machines running on solar or wind energy should make Bitcoin an environmentally-friendly cryptocurrency. I don't understand why someone like Elon Musk criticizes Bitcoin's "high energy consumption" when it can easily be solved with alternative energy. Mr. Musk could've used his company (Tesla) to make Bitcoin greener for the world. But not doing anything about it, shows us that he's only spreading FUD for his own financial benefit. It looks like the mining industry will continue to move forward regardless of negative criticism from public figures and mainstream media. Who knows how far ASIC machines will go in the future?