please delete

[pooya87]

~
yeah you might be right. i checked and i think all it would be able to do is a half a gigahash per second. that wouldn't be enough to make any cash. so it won't help with mining bitcoin but maybe some other altcoin it could.

When you are calculating total computing power, you should keep in mind that usually when the number of cores in a CPU increases their individual clock speed decreases. That's because high CPU clock produces a lot more heat than a low CPU clock, with more cores you get more heat and at some point it would take a lot to cool the CPU down.
For example core i9-10980XE has 18 cores but speed is 3 GHz while core i7-7740X has 4 cores with the speed of 4.3 GHz each.

[1713258452]

1713258452

[1713258452]

1713258452

[1713258452]

1713258452

[n0nce]

Also, the other downside, and this only really applies to if you mean mining at their actual home is even the quietest miners, tend to make some sort of audible sound, which not everyone wants in their home. Then you have to think about the dynamics at home, the husband/wife might want to mine, but does their partner want the constant hum of the miners, and the wires sprawled everywhere.

Apparently some company is going to be selling a 128 core cpu next year. i bet that will put asics out of business. plus it won't make any noise.

Not at all! I first thought you were trolling, but it's good. We're all here to learn. First of all, 64-core CPUs are widespread in server applications for years, and a 2x improvement in core count is just O(1) difference, so those would compete with ASICs just as well as 128-core CPUs (just use 2 of them, right).
Secondly, no general-purpose chip can compete with ASICs per definition. Realistically, even a very old ASIC will beat such a CPU.

Little back of the envelope calculation:
Let's assume the CPU was able to do one SHA per clock cycle (absolute maximum, with specialized instruction that doesn't exist). Let's assume a constant all-core (usually only 1 core can boost, but let's assume so) boost clock of the highest boosting CPU of roughly 5GHz (high core count CPUs clock lower, but let's give it its best shot). 128 cores x 5GHz x 1 hash/s = 640GH/s.
At a power draw of probably 300-500W and probably costing around $2,000 USD.

You can get a Compac F [1] for around $200 and 15W of power draw that pushes 300GH/s, so two of those would match this hypothetical CPU at a price of $400 and 30W. That's 5 times cheaper and at least 10 times more power efficient, so you could say 50 times better.

However I gave very very optimistic numbers; a CPU needs way more than 1 cycle per hash; I believe 100-1000 cycles if memory serves correct, which would be 6.4GH/s or 0.64GH/s - much lower than even an old stick miner which just pulls 5W like NewPac [2].

[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5355470.0
[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5053711.0

[larry_vw_1955]

Little back of the envelope calculation:
Let's assume the CPU was able to do one SHA per clock cycle (absolute maximum, with specialized instruction that doesn't exist). Let's assume a constant all-core (usually only 1 core can boost, but let's assume so) boost clock of the highest boosting CPU of roughly 5GHz (high core count CPUs clock lower, but let's give it its best shot). 128 cores x 5GHz x 1 hash/s = 640GH/s.
At a power draw of probably 300-500W and probably costing around $2,000 USD.

Well if what they saying is true that it power consumption is 10 times less than what exist now, if you assume 15 watts per core for standard hardware, then this thing 1.5 watts per core. so under 200 watts total at full load. $2000 for that cpu is probably about in the right ballpark. they said the cost is 3x lower than other things.

You can get a Compac F [1] for around $200 and 15W of power draw that pushes 300GH/s, so two of those would match this hypothetical CPU at a price of $400 and 30W. That's 5 times cheaper and at least 10 times more power efficient, so you could say 50 times better.

the problem with doing that is, it can't mine anything else except sha-256 coins and even at 300GH/s I don't think it makes any money. which is why i later said that the only way this cpu could make sense in mining is to mine some other algo. where it could probably make some money.

but there is an upfront cost kind of like there is for asic mining. no getting around that. but i realize now that asics are way more advanced in bitcoin for cpus to be competitive.

[n0nce]

Well if what they saying is true that it power consumption is 10 times less than what exist now, if you assume 15 watts per core for standard hardware, then this thing 1.5 watts per core. so under 200 watts total at full load. $2000 for that cpu is probably about in the right ballpark. they said the cost is 3x lower than other things.

Okay, so if it's 200W, it's only 1/3 less than what I used, so it doesn't change the result much.

You can get a Compac F [1] for around $200 and 15W of power draw that pushes 300GH/s, so two of those would match this hypothetical CPU at a price of $400 and 30W. That's 5 times cheaper and at least 10 times more power efficient, so you could say 50 times better.

the problem with doing that is, it can't mine anything else except sha-256 coins and even at 300GH/s I don't think it makes any money.

Sure, you would buy more of them if you have $2000+ in budget or just get something with better hash / $ ratio like an S17 ASIC. These are definitely overpriced if you want to get a lot of hashrate and really make some money. Even the little Apollo BTC has a better hash / $ ratio than the Compac, though it consumes more power (per hash).

which is why i later said that the only way this cpu could make sense in mining is to mine some other algo. where it could probably make some money.

but there is an upfront cost kind of like there is for asic mining. no getting around that. but i realize now that asics are way more advanced in bitcoin for cpus to be competitive.

Sure, there always is. The CPU you mentioned will surely be great for something like Monero or other CPU-targeted coins, however I'm not sure if there won't be ASICs for those eventually, too (or already exist but nobody knows about it). But this is another topic.

[Zilon]

All miners who compete for a new block actually contribute to the blockchain security because the network operate in a consensus mechanism in that if the rest are completely wait for a new block to be registered by selection or declaration of interest to register it can result in an invalid UXTO. Bitcoin will remain an energy consumption crypto due to it's proof of work the only remedy is alternative source of energy generation preferably through waste

[n0nce]

All miners who compete for a new block actually contribute to the blockchain security because the network operate in a consensus mechanism in that if the rest are completely wait for a new block to be registered by selection or declaration of interest to register it can result in an invalid UXTO. Bitcoin will remain an energy consumption crypto due to it's proof of work the only remedy is alternative source of energy generation preferably through waste

What I like so much about PoW / wasting electrical energy is that you can produce this energy cleanly, so without harming the environment.

I'm not aware of anything else that can be produced and wasted in a climate-neutral fashion; for instance, proof of space requires certain materials to produce HDDs and SSDs and they end up on landfills at the end of the day. ASIC miners eventually also have a limited lifetime, but are often resold and reused for many years down the road. I can also imagine future ASIC designs to e.g. allow to upgrade hashboards without trashing the whole device. This would already reduce e-waste a good bit.

[LegendaryK]

All miners who compete for a new block actually contribute to the blockchain security because the network operate in a consensus mechanism in that if the rest are completely wait for a new block to be registered by selection or declaration of interest to register it can result in an invalid UXTO. Bitcoin will remain an energy consumption crypto due to it's proof of work the only remedy is alternative source of energy generation preferably through waste

What I like so much about PoW / wasting electrical energy is that you can produce this energy cleanly, so without harming the environment.

I'm not aware of anything else that can be produced and wasted in a climate-neutral fashion; for instance, proof of space requires certain materials to produce HDDs and SSDs and they end up on landfills at the end of the day. ASIC miners eventually also have a limited lifetime, but are often resold and reused for many years down the road. I can also imagine future ASIC designs to e.g. allow to upgrade hashboards without trashing the whole device. This would already reduce e-waste a good bit.

Side note, the problem with Proof of Space is not the algorithm itself,
it is the use of SSD drive, which are designed from the beginning to have a shorten lifespan of writes.
If one used the older design Sata drives with no writes limits or created large virtual drives in pure ram,
this SSD waste issue could be eliminated.   
 

[garlonicon]

or created large virtual drives in pure ram

So, it would be "obscured" Proof of Work again, right? Because if you add the magic word "compressed" to those "large virtual drives", then you will get Proof of Work. So, you have a choice: you can execute SHA-256 many times, for example 2^32 times at difficulty one, and get one matching block hash. Or you can create 2^32 hashes on hard disk, ram disk, or just "any" disk, then we have your "large virtual drives in pure ram". And if you change SHA-256 to Shabal, and add plotting, then you will get Chia, Burstcoin, and others. As you can see, Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work. Again.

[larry_vw_1955]

Apparently some company is going to be selling a 128 core cpu next year. i bet that will put asics out of business. plus it won't make any noise.

No chance. An S19 Pro is 5 million times faster than a CPU core. You would need 40,000 128-core CPUs to match a single S19 Pro.

i did read about a cpu that had almost 1 million cores i think 850,000 but i'm sure it's an expensive machine. but assuming each core could do 1 gigahash per second, that would be 850 terahash per second. not bad.

[LegendaryK]

or created large virtual drives in pure ram

So, it would be "obscured" Proof of Work again, right? Because if you add the magic word "compressed" to those "large virtual drives", then you will get Proof of Work. So, you have a choice: you can execute SHA-256 many times, for example 2^32 times at difficulty one, and get one matching block hash. Or you can create 2^32 hashes on hard disk, ram disk, or just "any" disk, then we have your "large virtual drives in pure ram". And if you change SHA-256 to Shabal, and add plotting, then you will get Chia, Burstcoin, and others. As you can see, Nothing is Cheaper than Proof of Work. Again.

In your opinion,
PoW is cheapest, only bitcoin supporters believe such fantasy.
No one else does.

Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW.

An alternative opinion : Bitcoin is a Dumpster Fire.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeM1VK7yyCI

* PoW in it's current energy wasting state can't survive a carbon tax.*  

Plus Bitcoin miners make lousy neighbors by raising everyone power bill and increasing blackouts.
https://www.governing.com/next/what-risks-does-crypto-mania-pose-to-texas-power-grid

[pooya87]

Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW.

It's a free world, nobody can force them to use the most secure option. It's like food, for centuries we've been eating healthy food but suddenly some people decided to eat cockroaches. We can't prevent them, no matter how stupid that is.

[LegendaryK]

Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW.

It's a free world, nobody can force them to use the most secure option. It's like food, for centuries we've been eating healthy food but suddenly some people decided to eat cockroaches. We can't prevent them, no matter how stupid that is.

The PoS coin Algorand is more secure than PoW BTC.

A more proper analogy,
is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand).

Simple delusions based on confusing a technology with a religion.  

Algorand 4 second block time with transactions guaranteed forever after 1 block
BTC 10 minute block time with no guarantee against transaction rewrites aside from the last checkpoint coded by satoshi himself.

True security only happens with transaction finality, Algorand has it after only 1 block , bitcoin does not.

[tromp]

The PoS coin Algorand is more secure than PoW BTC.

Sure; a centralized 100% premined coin can be more secure than a decentralized PoW coin.

[pooya87]

The PoS coin Algorand is more secure than PoW BTC.

Again, it is a free world and nobody is forcing others to buy the secure, decentralized and fairly distributed bitcoin. If people think that dog poop in a pretty bag is a valuable purchase who are we to judge them

[LegendaryK]

The PoS coin Algorand is more secure than PoW BTC.

Again, it is a free world and nobody is forcing others to buy the secure, decentralized and fairly distributed bitcoin. If people think that dog poop in a pretty bag is a valuable purchase who are we to judge them

And if people can't recognize that PoW is the dog poop, well enjoy your btc until they do. 

[BlackHatCoiner]

Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW.

And nearly everyone's using Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, Windows, Google products, PayPal, other financial institutions etc.; that doesn't make them good.

is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand).

Because they think they're driving a Corvette, but in reality, their car is worse than Hyundai Atos.

True security only happens with transaction finality, Algorand has it after only 1 block , bitcoin does not.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[LegendaryK]

Everyone else is moving to proof of stake or anything but PoW.

And nearly everyone's using Facebook, Instagram, Tinder, Windows, Google products, PayPal, other financial institutions etc.; that doesn't make them good.

is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand).

Because they think they're driving a Corvette, but in reality, their car is worse than Hyundai Atos.

True security only happens with transaction finality, Algorand has it after only 1 block , bitcoin does not.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You have no idea what I am talking about.
That's on you.
 

Maybe a little reading might help you, but I remain skeptical of your ability to comprehend.
https://smithandcrown.com/glossary/transaction-finality-probabilisticdeterministic/
In Short , you hope BTC attains transaction finality with each additional block,
but without a program coded checkpoint there will never be a 100% guarantee with btc that a transaction can't be overwritten.
While on the other hand algorand has transaction finality after 1 four second block.
The should be apparent to anyone that algorand transaction are more secure than btc transactions.
Plus Algorand does it without raising energy rates or causing increases in grid blackouts.

Feel free to deny it, but reality will be unaffected by your false belief.  

[stompix]

A more proper analogy,
is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand).

The problem with analogies is that you have to come up with clearly defined comparisons, in this case, you're simply labeling coins as you wish without any single valid point.
If Algo is the corvette because of speed, then what is Solana?, A Ferrari? Doge is a Mustang?
And what has PoW and PoS to do with block time anyhow? Should we start the debate on electric or diesel now?  

Rather than labeling BTC as a Model T, how about you label it as the car that gets you everywhere, while your algo is just a bling coin that is not accepted anywhere as it doesn't mean road standards? See, this analogy is based on a clear observable fact!

[LegendaryK]

A more proper analogy,
is why do people driving old model T car (BTC) believe they can out perform a Corvette (Algorand).

The problem with analogies is that you have to come up with clearly defined comparisons, in this case, you're simply labeling coins as you wish without any single valid point.
If Algo is the corvette because of speed, then what is Solana?, A Ferrari? Doge is a Mustang?
And what has PoW and PoS to do with block time anyhow? Should we start the debate on electric or diesel now?  

Rather than labeling BTC as a Model T, how about you label it as the car that gets you everywhere, while your algo is just a bling coin that is not accepted anywhere as it doesn't mean road standards? See, this analogy is based on a clear observable fact!

For a more accurate analogy, which cars have been banned from driving on public roads in China?  

So do you also believe that transaction finality is irrelevant to security as blackhatcoiner does?

[BlackHatCoiner]

Feel free to deny it, but reality will be unaffected by your false belief.

I'll deny it, thanks.

Checkpoints protect against a low difficulty flood attack. They can't protect the system against a 51% attack, which is the kind of attack that overwrites transactions, unless they happen on every block. If they do, as in the case with Algorand, there's no decentralized decision-making.

If you start "locking" blocks by inserting unnecessary checkpoints everywhere, denying the existence of a chain with more work that isn't complied with your chain, then you fail to produce consensus. This isn't a technical problem, but a logical. If your coin is so insecure that you have to update the checkpoints in each block, then it fails at being decentralized.

Here's a discussion, 6 years ago, regarding this matter: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/7591
And: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5276774.msg55225123#msg55225123