A different question:
Would some of you Burst-people mind to explain in my thread, how energy-saving your technology proof of capacity (POC) mining is? I would like someone to compare it to POS and POW:
"Which is the most environmentally friendly, energy-efficient altcoin?":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=982957.0For good estimation, we would need a good calculation, of course, and for proof we would need some measurements and extrapolation...
But maybe we could get an idea.
Thank you.
You still need a computer and hard drive running to power Proof of Stake... but let's say that you do add 50 3TB drives to that computer, you could split your plots up across all of these of hard drives, and the only turn on two hard drives at a time per block. With POC2.. you'll only need to turn on 1 hard drives, one that stores signatures, one that stores the current scoop being read.
Otherwise, it'd consume 50 * 10 Watts per hard drive. So this equals 500 Watts = 0.5 kW
1 kW*hr costs 12 cents. Meaning 0.5 kWhr costs 0.5 * $0.12 = $0.06/hr
$0.06/hr * 24 hr/day * 365 days/yr = $500 of electricity per year
In my mind, eventually a device that starts switching drives off and on in my mind could be POC's version of an ASIC. This could bring the power usage down to about 12W total since you'd still have 1 hard drive running continually, plus the device would use some tiny amount of power.
Point being, there is definitely financial incentive to create such a device, which would definitely sell to POC mining farms, and once this type of device for connecting these hard drives to the network is being made, I suspect it'll pretty widely used for plugging in a variable number of drives.
Back to how much energy POC uses vs POS, and assume an average computer uses 300 Watts, POC uses 500 extra Watts that means that POC uses 800 Watts.
800 W / 300W = approx 2.7 as much energy as POS. So it's reasonable.
In other words POC2 uses 270% more energy than Proof of Stake.Proof of Capacity energy usage compared to Proof of WorkAssume you go with the above assumption that you connect 50 hard drives to the computer, and each hard drive costs $100 each. That means $5000 worth of hard drives which uses 800 W. Now let's pick a random Bitcoin miner. The TerraMiner IV which to err on Bitcoin's side, let's say it costs $1,000 USD (I can find it on Amazon for $750 -
http://www.amazon.com/CoinTerra-Terraminer-Iv/dp/B00JK64DXA but the original price was $1,200) and uses 2.1kW .
So $5000 worth of bitcoin miners = $5000 / $1,000 = 5 machines.
5 machines equals 5* 2.1KW worth of energy = 10.5 kW.
So POW uses 10.5 kW of electricity for an equivalent investment POC uses .8 kW of electricity.
10.5/0.8 KW = 13.13 times
Which means that POW uses 13.13 more energy than POC.The plus sides and reasons why POC beats POS though that POC is more decentralized, ASIC proof meaning even the little guy can mine, and more secure than POS, etc. And no history key attack potential plus mining is a great way to get new people into crypto currency. You can mine POC with no money spent buying coins first.. once we're doing 100s or 1000s of transactions, it'll be profitable for every day people to connect their extra hard drive space to the Burst network and join the network. Once they have free coins, they are more likely to be long term adopters.
And if you need proof regarding the last point that getting miners to join the network will be easier.. go look at Burst's estimated network size:
http://burstcoin.eu/charts/estimated-network-sizeIt's barely profitable to mine because people are willing to contribute hard drive space toward earning 'free' coins.. meaning this will be a great way to get people interested in Proof of Capacity currencies in the future because they are ASIC proof.
Would like some feedback then I'll go post this over in that thread.
