A new proof-of-work system for Bitcoin mining?

[cheezcarls]

A group of researchers has authored a paper proposing a new Bitcoin mining method to make it less energy-intensive and cheaper. Its new proof-of-work system moves costs from electricity to hardware.

It’s no surprise that Bitcoin, today, uses a lot of energy, particularly electricity. Hashcash proof-of-work has successfully secured Bitcoin’s network since the beginnings. However, it has run into problems as of late.

Read the full news here

So, these researchers are proposing a different concept for Bitcoin known as "Optical Proof-of-Work (OPoW)".

Look guys, I'm a huge fan when it comes to innovation. I was so blown away by their proposal that when we mine Bitcoins, it uses hardware as primary source of energy rather than electricity. It means that when it actually works, it's way cheaper and energy-efficient.

Do you guys think that this is really possible? I know that this is kind of exciting, but I would also expect that there will be drawbacks as well (which is the fact, the hardware's long-term condition itself).

What are your thoughts on this one guys? Would like to hear your own opinion about this one. Thank you in advance!

[1715582992]

1715582992

[1715582992]

1715582992

[ranochigo]

Implementing any protocol changes would likely be met with significant resistance from the community in general. Changing the mining algorithm would definitely result in a lot more resistance from the mining community and it would probably result in no change.

Putting that aside, the main factor that is securing the network right now is the cost of the resources. While the new mining algorithm could make it more expensive to mine, it could potentially result in centralisation whereby the richer could afford to control a larger percentage of the network. In addition, even if you eliminate the cost of electricity, the infrastructure and the cost of land and labour are still cheaper in countries like China and it won't have that much of an impact.

[NeuroticFish]

The authors propose a novel PoW algorithm, Optical Proof of Work (oPoW)

A new algorithm may be a huge problem.
1. Will anger the miners which have invested huge amounts of money into their actual hardware (in some cases including own hardware to generate electricity too)
2. In the "transition" period from the point of switching from actual PoW to the new oPoW with enough new miners (hardware) the network security will be extremely weak, leaving 135 billion dollars worth of coins not properly secured.
3. You have no guarantee that the miners will use the new hardware, they may simply jump for BCash, making it basically the new coin with the strongest network.
4. [2] and [3] will most probably make Bitcoin basically worthless
5. From all this move I see only one winner: the hardware makers.

So my proposal is: make a new altcoin under this tech, with this new oPoW. Let it grow. If someday its network will be strong enough, it may even surpass Bitcoin.

[franky1]

1. cheaper to mine = cheaper to attack
2. no matter what method is used, people will find a way to syndicate/pool resources to gain an upper hand. basically not solving the problem because it will just end up with warehouses full of hardware again
3. people thinking making it cheaper to mine = they get a change to become rich.. wont happen. sorry it just wont.

so many people think that changing the algo so the littleguy can get rich will not work. if there is money to be made. the big guys would invest heavily into it. and all of a sudden is not a 'electric' resource problem but a 'hardware' resource problem
and the little guys are in the same position as the original algo

all that ends up is changing the drama to pointing fingers at a different hardware brand as the culprit. not preventing the drama

[bitmover]

1. cheaper to mine = cheaper to attack

This has been discussed so much. I don't get how all newbies are just spreading this misconception about Bitcoin mining costs and energy consumption.

Energy consumption is necessary to secure the network. It is the only way, for now, to keep it secure and resistant to any form of attack (even against powerful nations).

Altcoins may try alternative algorithm, but bitcon needs to me more conservative and safer.

Once I heard antonopoulos saying that maybe the world can't handle two pow coins. And that's fine . There is only one Bitcoin.

[pooya87]

1. cheaper to mine = cheaper to attack

This has been discussed so much. I don't get how all newbies are just spreading this misconception about Bitcoin mining costs and energy consumption.

for the same reason why you keep hearing the same people say country x banned bitcoin, believing in FUD.
and bitcoin mining cost, energy consumption and environmental pollution is the new buzz among the FUDsters nowadays so it is understandable to see so many discussions about it, even a lot of legitimate attempts at creating new algorithms!
but they all miss one main thing, alternative doesn't mean better. the only way we would consider a PoW change is if the alternative is significantly better. so far all the proposals have some differences from current algorithm but have either the same weaknesses or have bigger problems while trying to solve an imaginary problem!

[franky1]

many people dont realise if it didnt cost something like $900 to mine gold. then the average spot price would not be $1000+
because if every man and his dog can dig it out their own backyard for the price of a metal spoon and a coffee filter. then the price of gold would drop to $ single digits

not due to any change in rarity/scarcity/demand.. but just due to the fact its so cheap to mine no one would even bother to buy for $1000+ when they can get it for $1. thus the price drops even if industry still demanded X tonnes a year

[Ucy]

I think I first read about Optical Proof-of-Work (OPoW) last year or so. I was quite excited then  aswell but I didn't hear much about it thereafter. I guess they are still working on it or have given up already.

My only problem with this, is the idea that it will encourage the use of "better and better technology/mining hardware".
I guess the better alternative to this idea would be something energy-efficient, easily available, easy and cheap to make... Otherwise hardware manufacturing will be centralized. And the manufacturer could even decide to stop exporting or selling to regular people.

[lionheart78]

The authors propose a novel PoW algorithm, Optical Proof of Work (oPoW)

A new algorithm may be a huge problem.
1. Will anger the miners which have invested huge amounts of money into their actual hardware (in some cases including own hardware to generate electricity too)
2. In the "transition" period from the point of switching from actual PoW to the new oPoW with enough new miners (hardware) the network security will be extremely weak, leaving 135 billion dollars worth of coins not properly secured.
3. You have no guarantee that the miners will use the new hardware, they may simply jump for BCash, making it basically the new coin with the strongest network.
4. [2] and [3] will most probably make Bitcoin basically worthless
5. From all this move I see only one winner: the hardware makers.

So my proposal is: make a new altcoin under this tech, with this new oPoW. Let it grow. If someday its network will be strong enough, it may even surpass Bitcoin.

I go with this.  OPOW is yet to be tested if it is hack-proof or what.  Since it is a new implementation and concept of mining, I guess it would cater a huge interest from the crypto community and creating an altcoin to show its capability and features is better than implementing it on Bitcoin since as stated by earlier replies, there will be tons of people especially miners who spend a lot of capital to build their current mining farm will go against it.

[Swordsoffreedom]

many people dont realise if it didnt cost something like $900 to mine gold. then the average spot price would not be $1000+
because if every man and his dog can dig it out their own backyard for the price of a metal spoon and a coffee filter. then the price of gold would drop to $ single digits

not due to any change in rarity/scarcity/demand.. but just due to the fact its so cheap to mine no one would even bother to buy for $1000+ when they can get it for $1. thus the price drops even if industry still demanded X tonnes a year

I see what you're suggesting but why didn't you compare this gold scenario to Bitcoin?
Basically implementing Optical PoW would crash the Bitcoin price because electricity would not be needed as much anymore. So cost to mine new bitcoins would drop and miners would offer them at lower prices to the market.

[kro55]

I agree with members on this thread that its pow consensus that has kept the network secure for almost a decade. Will this new OPoW guarantee security of the BTC network? EOS has DPoS consensus algorithm that is fast but at cost of security n centralization.

[Hydrogen]

Bitcoin miners high electricity consumption is a GOOD thing.

Crypto miners throw large sums of money at surplus sources of green electricity such as hydroelectric power. Which in turn helps fund the cost of new low carbon footprint power sources being introduced, globally. This helps reduce global reliance on fossil fuel based, hydrocarbons, energy sources such as coal and oil.

The overview for optical proof of work, reads like pseudoscience. Hash rate per watt is the metric determining the viability of optical PoW. The authors appear to admit from the onset optical PoW can't hope to compete with ASICs in this regard.

In essence, what they're delivering is an equivalent FLOP performance at overall greater cost. Their proposed redeeming factor is decreased electrical consumption in that way that someone might offer up a toyota prius as an alternative option to a race car. Greater fuel economy, with higher cost and decreased overall performance.

[hatshepsut93]

This system suffers from the same "nothing at stake" problem that PoS does - once you have acquired the mining tools, you can attack the network as much as you want. Imagine if the Chinese government decides to seize all these new mining hardware on their territory and then just leave it turned on to attack Bitcoin. The power of PoW lies in continuously trading energy for blocks, so no matter how many miners go rogue, they have to keep sustaining their attack, and it's much more costly than obtaining a lot of expensive miners once.

[dothebeats]

This is will be met by a lot of opposition, and may result to yet another fork if not supported fully by the whole network. I don't think bitcoin's huge electricity consumption is a problem, especially if these funds are diverted towards paying companies that operate green energy such as hydro, wind, geothermal.. you name it. It's not a matter of how much energy was being used if it was paid for in order to make the energy source better as well. The PoW algorithm for bitcoin has been politicized for countless of times, and it's never the issue of efficiency IMO, but rather who implements what on the chain.

[figmentofmyass]

Implementing any protocol changes would likely be met with significant resistance from the community in general. Changing the mining algorithm would definitely result in a lot more resistance from the mining community and it would probably result in no change.

yep---implement it into an altcoin. the bitcoin ecosystem is extremely averse to drastic consensus changes. any attempt to implement "OPoW" into bitcoin is guaranteed to split onto a new network anyway. might as well just launch it as a new altcoin from the get-go.

Putting that aside, the main factor that is securing the network right now is the cost of the resources. While the new mining algorithm could make it more expensive to mine, it could potentially result in centralisation whereby the richer could afford to control a larger percentage of the network.

isn't that already the case? bitcoin mining has become completely industrial. only people with huge capital can expect to remain competitive.

many people dont realise if it didnt cost something like $900 to mine gold. then the average spot price would not be $1000+
because if every man and his dog can dig it out their own backyard for the price of a metal spoon and a coffee filter. then the price of gold would drop to $ single digits

not due to any change in rarity/scarcity/demand.. but just due to the fact its so cheap to mine no one would even bother to buy for $1000+ when they can get it for $1. thus the price drops even if industry still demanded X tonnes a year

if everyone could mine for gold in their backyard, it wouldn't be scarce. you're not accounting for that.

commodity price tends towards the cost of production because producers must remain profitable. that requires demand above the cost of production. the price of gold could fall several hundred $$ and that would just cause loss-making mines to shut down. in turn, the supply of gold being produced would fall to account for the falling demand.

[franky1]

many people dont realise if it didnt cost something like $900 to mine gold. then the average spot price would not be $1000+
because if every man and his dog can dig it out their own backyard for the price of a metal spoon and a coffee filter. then the price of gold would drop to $ single digits

not due to any change in rarity/scarcity/demand.. but just due to the fact its so cheap to mine no one would even bother to buy for $1000+ when they can get it for $1. thus the price drops even if industry still demanded X tonnes a year

if everyone could mine for gold in their backyard, it wouldn't be scarce. you're not accounting for that.

commodity price tends towards the cost of production because producers must remain profitable. that requires demand above the cost of production. the price of gold could fall several hundred $$ and that would just cause loss-making mines to shut down. in turn, the supply of gold being produced would fall to account for the falling demand.

i am accounting for it. but your just not playing the scenario out properly
take it this way
instead of 1 excavator using all its diesel to dig up and sluice 100ounces a week($90k costs). imagine 100 people spoon sifting 1 ounce ofgold each where it only cost them a spoon a filter paper and 8 hours labour

same supply(100ounce a week).. same demand(industry still needs it). = same scarcity.. only difference is the cost of acquiring it goes from $900+ a ounce to being $70 an ounce
suddenly the profit margin becomes massive meaning the next buyer can play that against the miner and progressively reduce the price while still offering a profitable price.. slowly making the price go down as people try to sell before being undercut by other competitors

[hello_good_sir]

There's been quite a bunch of new ideas circulating around BTC mining, and there are forks/ideas that will bring BTC to a POS, POW and a lot of other systems all focused on the idea of saving money and keeping energy consumption low. The problems are however:

- It will be a different fork to BTC and will either split BTC into 2 weaker communities or completely be dead on arrival.
- Miners and a lot of investors will never, never touch the new BTC, likely either keep mining the old BTC, or move to other coins (BCASH).
- Waste of time/effort.

[ilovealtcoins]

This will not be possible as miners will never accept this proposal from the bitcoincore team.  The miners spent a great deal of money to build their mining system.  If they were only to propose alternative hardware, it would continue to be another way for hardware companies to make a profit.  Currently this proposal is not feasible.

[pooya87]

This will not be possible as miners will never accept this proposal from the bitcoincore team.  The miners spent a great deal of money to build their mining system.  If they were only to propose alternative hardware, it would continue to be another way for hardware companies to make a profit.  Currently this proposal is not feasible.

neither miners nor bitcoincore team are in charge of bitcoin to decide what algorithm is used in its mining for proof of work. the entire network has to decide, the rest are only employees that are working for the network.
as for the change it will only happen if there is another algorithm that is greatly better than the current PoW algorithm that is being used. so far every proposal is either horrible or doesn't come close.

[kazumi_opow]

https://youtu.be/-URzxEjeBu4