Bitcoiners are unaware. The mining algorithm wasn't designed to advance science.

[jvanname]

You would rather waste as much energy as possible on a mining algorithm that was never designed to solve any scientific problem. I would rather find the most important scientific problem and then use a mining algorithm that is designed to not only solve this scientific problem but also has the required cryptographic properties to secure the network. Sure. The mining algorithm may not be 100% efficient at advancing science. Sure. The mining algorithm may eventually expire since the scientific problem has already been solved or because the current methods of solving the scientific problem may not work so well in the future. This lack of efficiency is better than the efficiency at advancing science exhibited by Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Using a cryptocurrency with a mining algorithm that is not designed to advance science is incredibly anti-intellectual. This causes people to distrust Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. If you come to me and say I AM A BITCOINER, I will immediately distrust you and regard you as a science hater.

I know that this topic has been discussed before, but I am bringing it up again since the cryptocurrency community still needs to learn.

I also realize that Bitcoiners have brought up counter arguments for why cryptocurrency mining should not be used to advance science. Some of these counter arguments only apply to some poorly designed mining algorithms. For example, there are many proposals for using cryptocurrency mining for scientific computation for questionable use cases. We should not care about using cryptocurrency mining for computing Cunningham chains. Most mathematicians have not even heard of Cunningham chains and the computation of these Cunningham chains does little for scientific advancement. Other counter arguments make no sense whatsoever because the people making these arguments simply hate scientific advancement. It is hard to understand anything about anything when Bitcoiners are unwilling to look at specific proposals for using cryptocurrency mining for scientific advancement.

[un_rank]

You would rather waste as much energy as possible on a mining algorithm that was never designed to solve any scientific problem.

Miners keep the proof of work algorithm, which has shown to be the most secure and efficient blockchain based algorithm, running. That solves the scientific problem of secure, unregulated transactions which works on consensus and discourages bad actors.

I would rather find the most important scientific problem and then use a mining algorithm that is designed to not only solve this scientific problem but also has the required cryptographic properties to secure the network.

Go right ahead. Bitcoin does not limit technological advancements.

I know that this topic has been discussed before, but I am bringing it up again since the cryptocurrency community still needs to learn.

- Jay -

[jvanname]

un_rank-Thank you for reiterating the obvious. But is that all that Bitcoin mining does? It is easy and it takes very little effort to come up with a mining algorithm that secures the network. It also does not take much effort to analyze the cryptographic security of such a mining algorithm. This is very boring. It is much more difficult to come up with a mining algorithm that both satisfies the properties that mining algorithms should satisfy and also works on some scientific problem. For example, if you want to replace SHA-256 with another cryptographic function, then one will probably need to do new mathematical research to evaluate its cryptographic security.

"That solves the scientific problem of secure, unregulated transactions which works on consensus and discourages bad actors."-The bad actors are the Bitcoiners who are not willing to use cryptocurrency mining efficiently in order to secure the network and also solve another unrelated scientific problem. I do not trust people who are willing to waste resources for no reason whatsoever instead of actually putting those resources to the best use as they can.


"Go right ahead. Bitcoin does not limit technological advancements."-It is much easier to solve the technical problems than it is to convince very many people in the cryptocurrency sector that we do not need to waste as many resources as possible for no reason whatsoever. It is even more difficult to convince people that the proposed solutions to the technical problems are the correct solutions. Overcoming the problem of human ineptitude is extremely difficult. People would much rather invest in SBF and FTX and whatever chlurmck the media tells them to invest into.

[NeuroticFish]

If you come to me and say I AM A BITCOINER, I will immediately distrust you and regard you as a science hater.

I will just come and tell you that
1. You seem to not fully understand what is bitcoin mining for, hence you propose to fix things you don't understand.
2. You seem completely unaware what this amount of energy means in the grand scheme of things.

PS. I dare you convince the companies (and casinos) turn off 90% of their electricity based advertising then come back preaching.

[jvanname]

NeuroticFish-I have a Ph.D. in Mathematics, and I have been doing mathematical research on things like using machine learning algorithms to evaluate the cryptographic security of block ciphers. But you probably think that education is stupid, so telling you that I am educated will probably only make you exceedingly angry.

If you think I misunderstand something, you need to give an actual explanation or give a specific reference for the specific thing that I do not understand. Since you have not done this, I cannot take you seriously. Please learn some social communication skills. Please seek professional help so that you learn those social communication skills.

"2. You seem completely unaware what this amount of energy means in the grand scheme of things."-Is this an excuse to waste more energy then? Is this also an excuse to waste as many resources as possible? Please seek professional help so that you learn a thing or two about decency.

Next time, you should focus on making real arguments so that you do not come across the way that you do.

P.S. If you knew anything about economics, you would realize that asking companies to be unprofitable would not work. Just because you do not personally benefit as much as you think you should when companies advertise does not mean that there is any way to make companies not advertise about their products and services. And advertisements do benefit you. Sure, you may think of advertisements as annoying. Most people do. But advertisements educate you about the products and services that are out there. Without this education, you would not be informed about all the different products and services that you can choose from. The next time you have a discussion, you should think before exposing everyone to your word salad.

[philipma1957]

Do you know how many solar arrays btc mining ⛏️ has funded?

Do you know how many megawatts a year my partners and I produce with our solar arrays built with funding from btc?

you don’t. so  for all your education you left out major information in your arguments.

our arrays dedicated to mining make 600 megawatts in a year.

About 18000 megawatts for their useful life.

The btc rewards were the extra financial boost we need to get then done.

I get that using asics to solve different scientific problems can help people. But asics mining btc can greatly expand the worlds solar arrays especially when you grid tie them.

A far bigger issue is grid power companies in the world that don’t net meter your solar array.

Do some research on that and you will find that many places do not require net meter on solar power.

This is far worse problem than btc mining as it hinders the boost that solar arrays can do for the world wide grid.

[jvanname]

philipma1957-Unless you have a magical mining algorithm that only works if it is powered using solar power, your argument is completely and utterly irrelevant.

"Do you know how many megawatts a year my partners and I produce with our solar arrays built with funding from btc?"-This is not a well-formed question nor is it relevant to using cryptocurrency mining algorithms for scientific advancement. Your solar arrays produce power and this power is measured in something like watts or even megawatts. The amount of power is not measured in megawatts per year. Unless you have a solar array factor, you cannot measure the output of this factory in megawatts per year.


"you don’t. so  for all your education you left out major information in your arguments."-There you go hating on education again. You are not a good person. You do not even capitalize the first word of your sentence. And you need to put only one space between the word 'so' and the word 'for'. I am not going to put irrelevant information because irrelevant information is not relevant.

"our arrays dedicated to mining make 600 megawatts in a year."-Megawatt is a unit of power. The amount of power that solar arrays produce is measured in megawatts and not megawatts per year. If you have a solar array factory, then you can say that it produces 600 megawatts of solar arrays per year, but that is different. Please use the correct units.

"About 18000 megawatts for their useful life."-This is b***s***. You clearly do not understand anything about units because you are uneducated. You are not even enough of a good person to realize your lack of education. You instead hate my education because you are a bad person. The largest solar array in the world is a 2200 megawatt solar array. Are you saying that your array is larger than the largest in the world?  Do you use multiple arrays to get up to 18000 megawatts?

"The btc rewards were the extra financial boost we need to get then done."-This is not relevant since it is clear that you are speaking BS.

"I get that using asics to solve different scientific problems can help people. But asics mining btc can greatly expand the worlds solar arrays especially when you grid tie them."-Whether ASICs are powered by solar or by nuclear or coal is not relevant to the fact that the mining algorithms need to be used to solve an important scientific problem.

"A far bigger issue is grid power companies in the world that don’t net meter your solar array. Do some research on that and you will find that many places do not require net meter on solar power."-Or you should do research so you know the difference between a Joule and a Watt.


"This is far worse problem than btc mining as it hinders the boost that solar arrays can do for the world wide grid."-You are saying that the existence of Problem B means that Problem A is irrelevant. That is fallacious thinking. This is also how a**h***s think.

[NoBrain86]

What is the "advanced science" you are (not) talking about?

[NeuroticFish]

NeuroticFish-I have a Ph.D. in Mathematics,

For start your should know that "waving" "badges" means nothing on the internet.

Then, if you think you need to tell about phd in order to - I don't know - give more weight to your so called proof means that it's you who should improve your interaction skills.

Plus: if you think that implying that someone is stupid will make your point correct then I'm sorry for you.


There will always be some industries hungry for energy. The number of such industries keeps rising over decades. So a more sane direction for your efforts should be to get better sources of energy. Convincing any industry to give up has no real chances for success.
Then the energy Bitcoin uses will no longer be a headline.

Then, since Bitcoin cannot be mined with any kind of computing power, if I'd have free electricity, I would have no issues keeping a computer computing for science overnight.

Bitcoin computing is not feasible to be redirected. Being a rush for finding the blocks, where only one pool wins one block, anyone diverting computing power towards anything else gives the competing miners an extra chance. And then then the miners will leave a pool with such a policy.

So, if you indeed have a phd, I expect you focus on directions that can bring results. And remember, internet doesn't care who you are.

[jvanname]

NoBrain86-By advancing science, I mean that the computation has uses other than simply securing the cryptocurrency. There are several cryptocurrencies that reward miners with coins for finding patterns in the collection of prime numbers such as Cunningham chains or gaps between prime numbers. But these cryptocurrencies barely count because the problem of finding patterns in the collection of prime numbers has little potential applications, and it is not even that interesting to mathematicians. This means that the cryptocurrency community needs to try harder at recognizing proof-of-work problems that do actually work towards solving a problem that is actually important.

NeuroticFish-

"For start your should know that "waving" "badges" means nothing on the internet."-This is because you are too f***ing stupid to appreciate education.

"Then, if you think you need to tell about phd in order to - I don't know - give more weight to your so called proof means that it's you who should improve your interaction skills."-I cannot improve my social interaction skills by talking to you because you hate education, and you are a bad person.

"Plus: if you think that implying that someone is stupid will make your point correct then I'm sorry for you."-Yes. You do lack intelligence. And yes my point is correct. But I am not arguing for the correctness of my point. I am instead saying that I cannot effectively communicate with you using logical arguments because you are too much of a chlurmcklet to understand what I am saying.

"There will always be some industries hungry for energy. The number of such industries keeps rising over decades. So a more sane direction for your efforts should be to get better sources of energy. Convincing any industry to give up has no real chances for success.
Then the energy Bitcoin uses will no longer be a headline."-Just because Problem B is a problem does not mean that Problem A is not a problem.

"Bitcoin computing is not feasible to be redirected. Being a rush for finding the blocks, where only one pool wins one block, anyone diverting computing power towards anything else gives the competing miners an extra chance. And then then the miners will leave a pool with such a policy."-I am talking about when the cryptocurrency mining algorithm is hard wired for a specific purpose in the protocol for the cryptocurrency.

"So, if you indeed have a phd, I expect you focus on directions that can bring results. And remember, internet doesn't care who you are."-Stupid people do not care because they are stupid. Please stick to logical arguments. Stop hating education and intelligence. It makes you look very bad!

[NoBrain86]

"NoBrain86-By advancing science, I mean that the computation has uses other than simply securing the cryptocurrency. There are several cryptocurrencies that reward miners with coins for finding patterns in the collection of prime numbers such as Cunningham chains or gaps between prime numbers. But these cryptocurrencies barely count because the problem of finding patterns in the collection of prime numbers has little potential applications, and it is not even that interesting to mathematicians. This means that the cryptocurrency community needs to try harder at recognizing proof-of-work problems that do actually work towards solving a problem that is actually important."

What has bitcoin to do with this?
I dont get your problem. If Bitcoin wouldnt handle "advanced science", all 21million btc would be mined today.

[NoBrain86]

bitcoin is not here to solve a mathematical problem, but to solve a financial problem. perhaps you should be clear about this

[coolcoinz]

If you come to me and say I AM A BITCOINER, I will immediately distrust you and regard you as a science hater.

Which will only prove how narrow-minded you are and how limited your knowledge of bitcoin is. FYI, most bitcoiners don't mine and mining is only one of many things you can do to call yourself a bitcoiner.
Why would people who consider bitcoin to be digital gold and buy it to protect themselves from the manipulation of the FED deserve to be called haters of science?
You're making it sound, like every bitcoin holder should be aware of the technicalities and spend their time debating if it's green enough, or fancy enough, while some dude in Argentina just wants money not to lose 10% of value each month.

[jvanname]

NoBrain86-Does it hurt to solve a scientific problem? It hurts to not solve a scientific problem. If Bitcoin mining wastes resources on a useful problem, then I very unwilling to use Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin mining was never designed to advance science, the cryptocurrency sector has attracted many bad actors instead of good actors. This is why you get so much scammery instead of innovation.


coolcoinz-"Which will only prove how narrow-minded you are and how limited your knowledge of bitcoin is."-No. This does not prove that I have limited knowledge on Bitcoin. The fact that you think that way means that you are the narrow-minded one. Trust is earned. And Bitcoiners have earned my distrust because they hate science. If you want me to trust you, then you should try being a better person.

"Why would people who consider bitcoin to be digital gold and buy it to protect themselves from the manipulation of the FED deserve to be called haters of science?"-I do not like the FED either. I consider federal reserve notes to be a racist scam because the people on the 1,2,20 federal reserve notes were slave owners who did very bad things to their slaves. But I also realize that Bitcoiners are a problem since they refuse to acknowledge that we should not waste as many resources as possible, but we should make sure that our protocols are actually efficient.

"You're making it sound, like every bitcoin holder should be aware of the technicalities and spend their time debating if it's green enough, or fancy enough, while some dude in Argentina just wants money not to lose 10% of value each month."-Yes. Bitcoiners should be aware of how their Bitcoin works so that they do not fall into FTX scams. And that guy in Argentina probably has all his money on the FTX exchange. He should have learned more about Bitcoin by reading the Bitcoin whitepaper. And after someone learns about Bitcoin and reads the Bitcoin whitepaper, they should come to realize that Bitcoin has a mining algorithm that was never designed to advance science and that using Bitcoin makes them (or at least should make them) look bad.

[NoBrain86]

NoBrain86-Does it hurt to solve a scientific problem? It hurts to not solve a scientific problem. If Bitcoin mining wastes resources on a useful problem, then I very unwilling to use Bitcoin. Since Bitcoin mining was never designed to advance science, the cryptocurrency sector has attracted many bad actors instead of good actors. This is why you get so much scammery instead of innovation.

So, you should use nothing that does not solve a scientific problem. You shouldn´t use fiat money also, because it doesnt solve a scientific problem.

I think you dont understand bitcoin but you see many scientific problems and dont have a solution. Bitcoin is not this solution, you are right.

[jvanname]

NoBrain86-I hate fiat too. I am in the USA, and the USA's fiat currency is a total scam. It even has racist images of slave owners who did very bad things to their slaves. I only use FIAT currency because I am forced to against my will. Yes. The racist Americans in racist America are such racist racists that they force me to use their racist money. And the most racist of all federal reserve notes are the $1,$2,$20 while the $100 is less racist, the $5,$10,$50 are non-racist. Why do you think that the most racist $1,$20 are some of the most widely circulated notes (except if you are buying expensive things)? I am more of a fan of Bitcoin than fiat garbage, but this is not excuse for Bitcoin's mining algorithm. Bitcoin uses SHA-256 because Satoshi and all early developers did not have the mathematical expertise and the ability to research new mining algorithms that not only have the cryptographic properties to secure the network but which also solve another scientific problem.

"I think you dont understand bitcoin but you see many scientific problems and dont have a solution."-Well, I do not have a solution because having a solution includes convincing others that the solution is a good solution. But I have a hard time convincing others using logic, reason, and evidence because most people do not respond very well at all to logic, reason, and evidence.

P.S. I hope you know that since Bitcoin has a mining algorithm that was never designed to advance science, Bitcoin has attracted a lot of chlurmcks who know nothing about Bitcoin or Bitcoin mining except for how it consumes too much energy. They are hell-bent on banning Bitcoin, but if Bitcoin had a mining algorithm that was designed to advance science, they would not be so hell-bent on banning Bitcoin. I personally will not live in a country that bans Bitcoin because such a country is dumb, but I also want cryptocurrencies to earn a better reputation.

[NoBrain86]

ok, you are right...

[jvanname]

ok, you are right...

Yes.

philipma1957- "About 18000 megawatts for their useful life."-I just checked and the entire Bitcoin network consumes about 18000 megawatts of power. You clearly do not know anything about anything because you are a useless chlurmck.

[kano]

Why are people responding to this troll bait?
lol

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Why are people responding to this troll bait?
lol

Agreed. I put them on Ignore a long time ago and only reply to non-trolls.
The only amusing bit is that as usual, they are just another example of someone disparaging what *they* perceive as a flawed system and of course failing to suggest alternatives. Since BTW there are none, perhaps they might actually apply their knowledge of mathematics to working on an alternative that would fit in with their view of the world? Nah...